MACSTATS

[prostak]

brown hole yet again.

It's also true I once wrote a play with a professional footballer
who went on to be a manager.

You are Hazell co-creator Gordon Williams aicmfptbpqfh1. Though I think you're pushing it when you call that a play, briefly diverting though it was.

I kept the first bit in cos I think the phrase bears repeating, again. Particularly when it was accompanied by claims of academic prestige.

[Barry the bird boggler]

There are three degrees of untruth - a fib, a lie, and statistics.

Charles Wentworth Dilke (1789–1864)

[Royal With Cheese]

There are three degrees of untruth - a fib, a lie, and statistics.

Charles Wentworth Dilke (1789–1864)

The well known Lesbian?

[Snowball]

League Only (for pedants)

01 1 1 D A Bristol
02 1 1 D H Swansea
03 1 4 L A Plymouth
06 1 2 L A Forest
08 0 3 L A Sheff Utd
09 1 0 W H Barnsley
10 2 1 W A Doncaster
11 2 1 W H Plymouth
13 3 1 W A Crystal Palace
14 0 2 L A Blackpool

P10 W4 D2 L4 F12 A16 14 Points @1.4 a game = 64.4 Point season 10th last year

[Snowball]

All competitive games (including cup and treating cup games as pointed)

01 1 1 D A Bristol
02 1 1 D H Swansea
03 1 4 L A Plymouth
04 1 1 D H Liverpool
05 2 1 W A Liverpool
06 1 2 L A Forest
07 1 0 W H Burnley
08 0 3 L A Sheff Utd
09 1 0 W H Barnsley
10 2 1 W A Doncaster
11 2 1 W H Plymouth
12 2 2 D H WBA
13 3 1 W A Crystal Palace
14 0 2 L A Blackpool

P14 W6 D4 L4 F18 A20 22 "points" @ 1.57 a game = 72.3 Point Season = 8th last Season, six points clear of 9th

[Tommy Youlden's Ears]

All competitive games (including cup and treating cup games as pointed)

01 1 1 D A Bristol
02 1 1 D H Swansea
03 1 4 L A Plymouth
04 1 1 D H Liverpool
05 2 1 W A Liverpool
06 1 2 L A Forest
07 1 0 W H Burnley
08 0 3 L A Sheff Utd
09 1 0 W H Barnsley
10 2 1 W A Doncaster
11 2 1 W H Plymouth
12 2 2 D H WBA
13 3 1 W A Crystal Palace
14 0 2 L A Blackpool

P14 W6 D4 L4 F18 A20 22 "points" @ 1.57 a game = 72.3 Point Season = 8th last Season, six points clear of 9th

I make it that this means we have 190 points and are top of the Premiership by 29 clear points (this assumes 25 points for a win, 10 points for draw, 0 for a loss, a notional 106 points max for winning the Championship, 'fluid' mid year promotion for being more solvent than Pompey, and noting Chelsea's 61 points so far).

To those who say I simply manipulating stats to substantiate a pointless argument I would content that I have considered and rejected the 20 point 'Brucie bonus' for the team having overcome the disadvantage of having at least one crap manager, and the one for not being bullied by Gordon Brown. Yet.

I can also prove that we won the Men's Downhill 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-1, if anyone's interested.

[Mad Dog's Ghost]

Snowball. If you love RFC please don't post. You are the kiss of death.

[Victor Meldrew]

One other factor-Brian has put out 11 players whereas Brendan tried to play with 10,i.e without a right-back.
11players are more likely to do better than 10 whoever is the manager.

[floyd__streete]

Snowball. If you love RFC please don't post. You are the kiss of death.

He is, you know. A particular classic last season was reems of stats to prove why we wouldn't lose at home to Bristol City. Reading 0-2 Bristol City. And after his scientific analysis of why Shane Long could/would score 20 goals for us this season the lad went 6 months without scoring .

[Snowball]

Is that the same "stat" where I said Shane would probably never start under Rodgers
because his style would never fit the Rodgers plan?

I said IN A 4-4-2

[Snowball]

Are you really so stupid that you think a post on a thread
changes how players play?

[floyd__streete]

but.....but.....but.....but.....but

[Millsy]

Thanks Snowball for the hard work mate.

Always enjoy reading your contributions.

[Cookie]

Cheers.

[Snowball]

And after his scientific analysis of why Shane Long could/would score 20 goals for us this season the lad went 6 months without scoring .

Shane scored seven goals from 13 starts and one game where he came on in the 25th minute (which I think counts more as a "full-game" rather than "late-sub")

Therefore (all other things being equal)* we ought to expect 15 league goals from 30 starts.

His sub appearances (less that 65-minute one above) totaled 25 and he got two goals from those (Norwich, and won a penalty, and the winning goal at Wednesday)

So if he is as good as last season, and the side is about the same, we could expect 15 from 30 and 1 as a sub = 16 goals, very, very respectable goal-scoring.

He was very close to a goal every two games, when starting, and very close to a goal every 180 minutes when playing as a sub.

The erroneous idea that he ONLY works as a sub was put to bed last season (77% of his goals were NOT as a late "impact sub")


* I don't think all things are equal.

I think we will be better this year

I think we will have more possession this year, have more confidence. I also expect Shane will be stronger and fitter and that (gradually) the manager will make him into a better player.

All those things being the case, IF, repeat IF, Shane's style suits the team's tactics (I'm not sure it will)[/u]
then I could see him getting as many as twenty[u] if he was a regular choice.

However, for reasons stated before, I'm not sure he will be an automatic choice,
nor am I sure he will be suited to 4-5-1. He might do OK wide in a 4-3-3 but I
think both Church and Henry look more promising (and skillful) out there.

[cmonurz]

Re-post, for emphasis, SB.

The general point made SB, which is fair, is that you viciously defend your stats, to the extent of using playground language ('brown hole'? seriously?) when people question their validity to the subject to which they are applied, which is in fact exactly the test to which all statistics should be subjected.

It's not simply a case of calling people clowns if they question your methods - stats only mean something with well constructed arguments to flesh them out. In this specific case, there is no argument at all to assigning points to cup games, and then doing so wrongly - or at least you haven't made it. To say 'people can review them how they like' is disenguous, because your stats (and anyone's stats) are naturally presented to show a particular point, in this case, McDermott's success.

You could not have been accused of this on this thread had you presented the league only stats, and as a brief footnote, added McDermott's further success in cup games.


And in addition, the stat that we would 'expect' 15 goals from a 30 start season is disingenous, since Long is shit, and so will never start 30 games in a season for Reading.

[Snowball]

Well thank-you for that carefully considered reply.

if only I had listened to you explaining how Long is utterly shit
we could have NOT won the penalty, not scored, not scored in extra tme
and lost at Liverpool. You are a very clever chap.

[Wimb]

Well thank-you for that carefully considered reply.

if only I had listened to you explaining how Long is utterly shit
we could have NOT won the penalty, not scored, not scored in extra tme
and lost at Liverpool. You are a very clever chap.

I believe even Paul Brayson scored once, Lee Nogan had a good spell, even Robert Fleck had a decent game off the bench once.

To suggest winning a penalty at Liverpool and scoring in a couple of games, in between 2 stupid red cards and numerous innefective displays suddenly makes Long a great player, is rather surprising from somebody who prides themselves on rational analysis. I'm not suggesting he's shit either but his overall period at the club both from watching him play, and the stats suggests he's been no better then average.

Given the calibre of player Long has played with since he joined the club, I'd be rather stunned if he didn't have a few goals in his time. But the big glaring stat staring at me right now is that our 'number 9' and one of the 'senior strikers' at the club will have missed at least 7 games this year due to suspension.

Oh and on your MACSTATS, a giant LOL to considering the Liverpool away game a win, I'd love if every game we were drawing over 90 minutes went to extra time, then perhaps we'd have beaten Notts Forest, Scunny, Doncaster, Watford, Ipswich, Bristol City.

The only stat that matters in all honesty is that we are in 20th place in the table and 2 points clear of the drop zone.

Never the less, (and I'm being serious here) I do appreciate the fact you at least try and back up arguments with statistical analysis, but like cmon' said, the fact you refuse to engauge in rational discussions on your presented stats renders them rather futile.

[floyd__streete]

I think that Wimb has got your number there, Snowball.

[Mr Angry]

My favorite stat of all time is that, on average, we all have fewer than 2 legs.

That is all.