RUMOUR - Tommy Smith

[Royalee]

No, I think Jimmy has moments of sublime skill and COULD be, if he can be sorted out, awesome.

Personally I'd rather watch players who can do magical stuff even if they often screw up.

Better that than robots.

You're mixing him up with Anelka.

[Royalee]

Smith is signing for Reading on Tuesday.

Haven't got a clue what the fee is because I forgot to ask, but exciting news and I'm pleased as punch.

Great news if/when it goes through.

[Ian Royal]

I'd rather watch an Andy Hughes, than a James Lambert when it comes to a full season.

[Agent Balti]

...and not all interpretations are valid. So, therefore something is never always right or it's always wrong. It's too 'random'.

Statistics HAVE to be finite, surely? Otherwise, what's the point? (I'm not taking about Long, but any general statistical argument.) Surely, to achieve X then you can't have variables that just throw spanners in the works, no? It's be bendable at a whim!

On this list there will always be people who will move the goalposts. For example, when Shane's goals as a sub were going in that was "only" because defences get tired and it was "much easier" to score in the last 15 minutes.

Of course those arguing that overlooked the fact that DOYLE was playing 90 minutes in almost every game
whereas Noel Hunt was typically only playing 60 minutes and NOT playing against "tired defences"

But Noel matched Doyle on goals per minutes played (almost exactly)... but since "it's easier to score
in the last 15 minutes (and I think Noel only once or twice played in the last 15) then Noel, on that basis,
was the more potent striker.

It's very rarely about an individual, especially with two strikers in a 4-4-2. It's about the combinations. I've lost count of the times I said Doyle-Hunt was the best pairing

Statistic ARE finite, provided the stats the club provides are accurate, but as too many have said...
some criticise me for making "erroneous conclusions". Otheres criticise me for NOT making conclusions.

But that's the whole point. If people can make 'an' interpretation, and do...but neither view is right or wrong - then it's really a rather defunct exercise. Baseball statistics bare this out - people argue to their hind teeth who is the best in whatever position, it's what people do. But what nobody can do is to argue and succeed that player x is better than player y as there will always be a counter argument (like that, say, Cureton was better than Butler because he scored more but Butler missed more chances. There's no stat for missed chances! But the argument could go that Butler was at least there whereas Cureton was 'missing'.) What I'm saying is that stats HAVE to be absolutely finite and the poster HAS to state which fact/stat they believe in....there are too many angles, least of all personal perception. It's a never ending argument...and if stats are there to prove a finite fact, it's show they prove anything but in some people's eyes...therefore it goes and on...nobody wins.

[glass half full]

Where are they playing nude basketball?

[Southbank Old Boy]

On this list there will always be people who will move the goalposts. For example, when Shane's goals as a sub were going in that was "only" because defences get tired and it was "much easier" to score in the last 15 minutes.

Wasnt it proven by your stats that it was actually easier* to score goals in the last 15/20 minutes than the rest of the game though?

* or at least that more goals were scored in that time across the league, that might not statistically prove they are easier goals of course

[Hampshire Royal]

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

I've published five crime novels, one was shortlisted for an international award.

Sold UK and US (and including alleged, hard-to-get-accurate-figures sales in China) about 450,000 copies

I've published about three hundred short-stories and articles on creative writing and won 15 First Prizes, two for poetry.

But no way am I coming out with my writing name on this list.

OK, send me a PM with the details. I am genuinely interested in reading some of your stuff. It goes without saying that whatever details you give me will remain a secret between us.

[Snowball]

...and not all interpretations are valid. So, therefore something is never always right or it's always wrong. It's too 'random'.

Statistics HAVE to be finite, surely? Otherwise, what's the point? (I'm not taking about Long, but any general statistical argument.) Surely, to achieve X then you can't have variables that just throw spanners in the works, no? It's be bendable at a whim!

On this list there will always be people who will move the goalposts. For example, when Shane's goals as a sub were going in that was "only" because defences get tired and it was "much easier" to score in the last 15 minutes.

Of course those arguing that overlooked the fact that DOYLE was playing 90 minutes in almost every game
whereas Noel Hunt was typically only playing 60 minutes and NOT playing against "tired defences"

But Noel matched Doyle on goals per minutes played (almost exactly)... but since "it's easier to score
in the last 15 minutes (and I think Noel only once or twice played in the last 15) then Noel, on that basis,
was the more potent striker.

It's very rarely about an individual, especially with two strikers in a 4-4-2. It's about the combinations. I've lost count of the times I said Doyle-Hunt was the best pairing

Statistic ARE finite, provided the stats the club provides are accurate, but as too many have said...
some criticise me for making "erroneous conclusions". Otheres criticise me for NOT making conclusions.

But that's the whole point. If people can make 'an' interpretation, and do...but neither view is right or wrong - then it's really a rather defunct exercise. Baseball statistics bare this out - people argue to their hind teeth who is the best in whatever position, it's what people do. But what nobody can do is to argue and succeed that player x is better than player y as there will always be a counter argument (like that, say, Cureton was better than Butler because he scored more but Butler missed more chances. There's no stat for missed chances! But the argument could go that Butler was at least there whereas Cureton was 'missing'.) What I'm saying is that stats HAVE to be absolutely finite and the poster HAS to state which fact/stat they believe in....there are too many angles, least of all personal perception. It's a never ending argument...and if stats are there to prove a finite fact, it's show they prove anything but in some people's eyes...therefore it goes and on...nobody wins.

Sheesh, I do NOT say "But that's the whole point. If people can make 'an' interpretation, and do...but neither view is right or wrong - then it's really a rather defunct exercise. "

I am saying that "the view"

whether to post stats and make a conclusion from them

OR

to post stats and let the stats speak for themselves

is neither right or wrong.

Get it?

It is not right or wrong to posts stats and make a conclusion from them
It is not right or wrong to post stats and NOT make a conclusion from them

That does NOT mean "any conclusion is valid", which is what you appear to be saying

[Snowball]

On this list there will always be people who will move the goalposts. For example, when Shane's goals as a sub were going in that was "only" because defences get tired and it was "much easier" to score in the last 15 minutes.

Wasnt it proven by your stats that it was actually easier* to score goals in the last 15/20 minutes than the rest of the game though?

* or at least that more goals were scored in that time across the league, that might not statistically prove they are easier goals of course

OK, if you say so. Therefore Noel Hunt is a much better striker than "I play the 90" Doyle.

[Snowball]

. There's no stat for missed chances!

Actually there are stats for shots on target, shots off target, shots hitting the woodwork.

They are on the club website under club statistics


39 (02) games = 39.3 "games" 43 Shots on target (18 Goals= 42% on target resulting in a goal) 27 off target 04 shots Hit Woodwork DOYLE
27 (10) games = 30.3 "games" 30 Shots on target (11 goals = 37% on target resulting in a goal) 22 off target 05 shots hit woodwork HUNT
11 (26) games = 19.7 "games" 14 Shots on target (09 Goals= 64% on target resulting in a goal) 13 off target 03 shots Hit Woodwork LONG

So Doyle averaged just under 2 shots a game (74 in 39.3) with 58% on target but 18/74 = 25% success rate goals to shots

Noel Hunt averaged just under 2 shots a game (57 in 30.3) with 37% on target but 11/57 = 19% success rate goals to shots

Shane managed 30 shots in 19.7 games (1.5 per game) with 47% on target but with a success rate of 9/30 = 30% success rate goals to shots

if you look at shots on target actually becoming a goal

14 On Target = 09 Goals = 64% LONG
43 On Target = 18 Goals = 42% DOYLE
30 On Target = 11 Goals = 37% HUNT


I don't know whether that means Long would rather pass to someone in a better position
or whether Doyle takes speculative shots, dunno, but Shane's on target shots are lethal!

[(.)Boobies(.)]

Stats stats stats... Blocked.
You make reading threads on here bloody hard work, or you did.

[brendywendy]

can the mods just delete the swathes of gay bitch fighting that have ruined this thread.
having to wade through pages of tripe just to get to the 1 or two posts actually about smith is really pissing me off

[Agent Balti]

Sheesh, I do NOT say "But that's the whole point. If people can make 'an' interpretation, and do...but neither view is right or wrong - then it's really a rather defunct exercise. "

I am saying that "the view"

whether to post stats and make a conclusion from them

OR

to post stats and let the stats speak for themselves

is neither right or wrong.

Get it?

It is not right or wrong to posts stats and make a conclusion from them
It is not right or wrong to post stats and NOT make a conclusion from them

That does NOT mean "any conclusion is valid", which is what you appear to be saying

Then there is no bloody point. You're either saying something or you're not. The counter argument is saying something or it isn't. THERE. IS. NO. POINT...if neither is right or bloody wrong. It's totally utterly MOOT. It's not, and never has been, based on what YOU alone say. There are always two (at least) sides to any statistic.

That's all I'm saying as you clearly refuse to see any option bar your own. I apologize for rendering the Tommy Smith thread useless.

Is he signing on Tuesday? I remain to be convinced.

[Royalee]

1+1=2
1+2=3
1+3=4
1+4=5
1+5=6
1+6=7
1+7=8
1+8=9
1+9=10
1+10=11
1+11=12
1+12=13
1+13=14
1+14=15
1+15=16
1+16=17
1+17=18
1+18=19
1+19=20
1+20=21
1+21=22

[Agent Balti]

1+1=2
1+2=3
1+3=4
1+4=5
1+5=6
1+6=7
1+7=8
1+8=9
1+9=10
1+10=11
1+11=12
1+12=13
1+13=14
1+14=15
1+15=16
1+16=17
1+17=18
1+18=19
1+19=20
1+20=21
1+21=22

What he said.

[Snowball]

Balti, imagine this statistic posted.


Striker "XXXX" over three full seasons has scored twice as many goals per game as any other striker in this league.


Now do you have a problem believing that striker XXXX is the best striker in this league?

Does me writing, "Striker "XXXX" over three full seasons has scored twice as many goals per game as any other striker in this league, and that means he's the best striker in the league." really add anything to the argument?


What is so wrong with posting statistics for people to consider
without me insisting on my own interpretation?

[Southbank Old Boy]

On this list there will always be people who will move the goalposts. For example, when Shane's goals as a sub were going in that was "only" because defences get tired and it was "much easier" to score in the last 15 minutes.

Wasnt it proven by your stats that it was actually easier* to score goals in the last 15/20 minutes than the rest of the game though?

* or at least that more goals were scored in that time across the league, that might not statistically prove they are easier goals of course

OK, if you say so. Therefore Noel Hunt is a much better striker than "I play the 90" Doyle.

If I say so?

They are your stats (see the Shane Long thread for the details) and they showed that generally goals are easy to score towards the end of games unless you happen to be Reading who bucked the general trend

[Agent Balti]

Balti, imagine this statistic posted.


Striker "XXXX" over three full seasons has scored twice as many goals per game as any other striker in this league.


Now do you have a problem believing that striker XXXX is the best striker in this league?

Does me writing, "Striker "XXXX" over three full seasons has scored twice as many goals per game as any other striker in this league, and that means he's the best striker in the league." really add anything to the argument?


What is so wrong with posting statistics for people to consider
without me insisting on my own interpretation?

Obviously that stat/argument is blindly obvious as the 'twice as many' is indisputable. But people arguing the toss over Lita vs Long is not one where 100% of people will agree. To post ANY kind of statistic is surely to prove that Lita is much, much better than Long. Otherwise, you're just arguing aimlessly forever. That's my point.

It has to be blindingly clear otherwise, a whole host of variables like minutes played, opposition played, games played, was it against ten men, was the ref blind, did the ball go across the line at all, I don't even like Leroy Lita, a bag of crisps wafted across the pitch at the point Long took his shot, boo hoo so unfair. Every statistic will be bent to its illogical conclusion. Otherwise, it gets too watered down and then people will blamestorm YOU as the poster (and especially if you then (rightly or wrongly) appear, even if you think you do not, try and worm your way out/in.) I think that's what gets peoples goat.

I am not saying that statistics are useless in singularity (like I said previously baseball statistics are brutal and honest) but to make comparisons out of them is humanly subjective, so whatever anyone else says is by definition just as valid as anyone else...even if they cannot back it up. Ergo, zero point to any of it being made an argument out of unless, like your mythical stat suggests, it's bleedin' bloody obvious. Then and only then, can it be a non-argument. You may say, but the data is there to see....and yes, you're right, but you're also wrong in that people won't use that same stat to mean something else entirely...then the plot is lost.

After all, if we're all down the pub having an argument over who is better than who, the moment it gets down to stats people just turn off and return to their pint. This is a virtual pub, not an equivalent of a spelling bee for numbers. And that's it, I'm not saying another word, unless you wish to PM me, as the virtual pub is losing its patience.

[Ian Royal]

would it be foolish to say that posting the statistic:
"Striker "XXXX" over three full seasons has scored twice as many goals per game as any other striker in this league."

is an obvious implication that he is the best striker in the league and it has been posted for the express purpose to make that point?

It's certainly not just been posted to allow others to interpret it and come to some unthought of conclusion.



Sorry!

[Snowball]

Obviously that stat/argument is blindly obvious as the 'twice as many' is indisputable. But people arguing the toss over Lita vs Long is not one where 100% of people will agree. To post ANY kind of statistic is surely to prove that Lita is much, much better than Long. Otherwise, you're just arguing aimlessly forever. That's my point.

There isn't the slightest comparison Long blows Lita out of the water over this last season and the last two seasons

2008-9

Last season had 23 starts and 04 sub appearances = 23.67 "games" and got 8 goals LITA = (1 goals every 3 games, includes Norwich games and goals)
Last season had 11 starts and 26 sub appearances = 15.33 "games" and got 9 goals LONG = ( 1 goal in better than every two games)

(If you do the exact minutes played Long comes out at 18 games played and still beats 1 goal in 2 games)

If you look at both the last two seasons ...



2007-8 & 2008-9 24 Starts 01 Sub Appearances 24.17 "Games" 10 Goals Lita (Charlton & Norwich)
2007-8 & 2008-9 16 Starts 08 Sub Appearances 17.67 "Games" 02 Goals Lita Reading

2007-8 & 2008-9 40 Starts 09 Sub Appearances 41.84 "Games" 12 Goals Lita Total = 1 goal every 3.47 "games"
2007-8 & 2008-9 18 Starts 48 Sub Appearances 26.00 "Games" 12 Goals Lita Total = 1 goal every 2.17 "games"


So in a direct comparison for two whole seasons, Lita played a full extra 15 games than Long but they scored exactly the same number of goals.


The reason "people argue the toss" of Lita is because they fail to remember that Lita's best season was four seasons ago, followed by an OK one
but seem to overlook the fact that he has been extremely ordinary for two seasons.

If you look at Lita's total league performance for Reading over 4 seasons it's 60 (23) = "64.00" Games and just 20 goals = 1 goal every 3.2 games
If you look at Long's total league performance for Reading over 4 seasons it's 28 (70) = "39.67" Games and just 17 goals = 1 goal every 2.3 games



Now that is every damn league game either has played for Reading and every league goal, spread over four seasons, but remember Long was 18 at the start of this.


Which is the better strike rate?

20 in 64 games (Lita)
17 in 40 games (Long)

You can multiply them up to 92 games and compare them directly

When I went to school 39 was a lot more than 29

20 in 64 games = 28.75 goals in 92 games (2 full seasons) LITA
17 in 40 games = 39.10 goals in 92 games (2 full seasons) LONG