Harte Signs

[Snowball]

But the biggest variable is the opposition, which changes on a match-by-match basis (obviously) - and surely the number of matches played this season both before and after Harte is much to small to give any statistical validity.

No, as game numbers increase the variable of the opposition begins to even out.

Combining all Harte's games this season gives us 11 games, and 9 games without Harte

11 is almost a quarter of a season, and that should be statistically significant.

But we have TWENTY games. Evidence in 11 games of Harte's positive effect
and evidence in 9 games of the effect of removing Harte.

When Harte left, Carlisle were 2nd in the table. They have now dropped to 4th.

When Harte joined Reading we were 13th. Now we are 7th.

2nd and 7th (with Harte) versus 4th and 13th. Only someone in denial could deny the effect is real.


But those figures LESSEN the Harte effect. Looking at Reading since Harte joined, we are FOURTH on 1.83 ppg.
we are seventh only because the four games prior to Harte's arrival have held us back.

Harte got Carlisle to 2nd. Take OUT those games and Carlisle, since he left are TENTH best.

04th with Harte (Reading)
13th W/O Harte (Reading)

02nd with Harte (Carlisle)
10th W/O Harte (Carlisle)

Average League Position with Harte 3rd
Average League Position W/O Harte 11th/12th

[BR2]

P4 W1 D2 L1 5 5 GD = 0 1.25 points per game = 57 point season Reading W/O Harte
P6 W3 D2 L1 9 4 GD = 5 1.83 points per game = 84 point season Reading with Harte

P5 W2 D3 L0 8 3 GD = 5 1.80 points per game = 83 point season Carlisle with Harte
P5 W2 D1 L2 5 3 GD = 2 1.40 points per game = 64 Point season Carlisle W/O Harte


Now look at Harte's 11 League Games this season versus his two clubs playing without him.


P11 W5 D5 L1 17 7 with Harte 1.82 points per game = 84 point season
P09 W3 D3 L3 10 8 W/O Harte 1.33 points per game = 61 point season

The common-factor is HARTE.

Harte has scored 4 times in those 11 games and kept 5 clean sheets in those 11 games.

Whether you look at Reading "with and without Harte" or Carlisle "with or without Harte" the results are close to identical
and when you combine all those games (11 with Harte v 9 without Harte) the Harte-effect is utterly clear.

I agree with the earlier poster that it is much too short a period to make any significant findings.
One example that I am aware of:
Bournemouth have the best home record in Div1.
Carlisle played away at Bournemouth AFTER Harte had left.
Bournemouth beat them 3-0
So that's a big change to Carlisle's goal difference and I would suggest that Bournemouth might well have still got 3 points even if Harte had been playing.
My point is that the standard of opposition would have to be taken into account and that it is impossible to come to the sort of conclusion that you have reached.

Suffice to say that Reading have done better since Harte arrived and Carlisle worse and both of those events could well turn out to be coincidental.
I believe that if Armstrong stays fit then as the season progresses his better defensive play and greater speed will be more important than Harte's set-pieces.
That is an opinion of course but it might be worth revisiting this topic later in the season and it will initially be interesting to see when Howard is available again and if MacDonald arrives whether Armstrong or Harte becomes our regular left-back.

[Stranded]

It is worth noting the relative strength of the opponents, which I have based on current league spot.

When Harte was with Carlisle, the average position of the opposition was 15th, since he left they are 8th - so a tougher run of games. With Reading, pre Harte the oppo average 18th whilst since he has been here 15th.

Not that proves a thing and I've been a fan of the signing since day 1.

[Hoop Blah]

But who had those oppo's played before and after Harte left?

Perhaps they'd had a easier run of games before they played Carlisle/Reading and so were in a false position????

[RobRoyal]

But the biggest variable is the opposition, which changes on a match-by-match basis (obviously) - and surely the number of matches played this season both before and after Harte is much to small to give any statistical validity.

No, as game numbers increase the variable of the opposition begins to even out.

Combining all Harte's games this season gives us 11 games, and 9 games without Harte

11 is almost a quarter of a season, and that should be statistically significant.

But we have TWENTY games. Evidence in 11 games of Harte's positive effect
and evidence in 9 games of the effect of removing Harte.

When Harte left, Carlisle were 2nd in the table. They have now dropped to 4th.

When Harte joined Reading we were 13th. Now we are 7th.

2nd and 7th (with Harte) versus 4th and 13th. Only someone in denial could deny the effect is real.


But those figures LESSEN the Harte effect. Looking at Reading since Harte joined, we are FOURTH on 1.83 ppg.
we are seventh only because the four games prior to Harte's arrival have held us back.

The number one, most harmful statistical misapprehension of them all: that correlation = causality.

[Snowball]

I find it amusing how folks are scrabbling for possible causality, after the fact.

Had Carlisle done equally well or better after Harte left, would you be looking at opposition?

Had Reading done less well, would you be looking at the opposition?

Reading have played TOUGHER opposition since Harte joined.

Away to then all-conquering Millwall, away to Boro, home to Ipswich
away to Preston who had just won 6-4 at Leeds and 2-0 at Coventry...

And the difference between pre-Harte and with Harte is not MINOR

[Arch]

I find it amusing how folks are scrabbling for possible causality, after the fact.

Had Carlisle done equally well or better after Harte left, would you be looking at opposition?

Had Reading done less well, would you be looking at the opposition?

Reading have played TOUGHER opposition since Harte joined.

Away to then all-conquering Millwall, away to Boro, home to Ipswich
away to Preston who had just won 6-4 at Leeds and 2-0 at Coventry...

And the difference between pre-Harte and with Harte is not MINOR

The thing is that pre- and with Harte coincides with with- and post-Gylfi and with with- and without-Williams, so although yuo're quite rigth to point out the numbers, it's misleading to describe them as illustrating "the Harte effect".

I have to say I sympathize with you up to a point. Ten games (or six or even four) is a much better sample than none, which is what some people used when Gylfi was sold and Harte bought to draw the conclusion that we were likely to be relegated, or at least that we'd do worse. I noticed someone say that we'd have done better with Gylfi. On the basis of what?!

[Snowball]

The thing is that pre- and with Harte coincides with with- and post-Gylfi and with with- and without-Williams, so although you're quite right to point out the numbers, it's misleading to describe them as illustrating "the Harte effect".

I have to say I sympathize with you up to a point. Ten games (or six or even four) is a much better sample than none, which is what some people used when Gylfi was sold and Harte bought to draw the conclusion that we were likely to be relegated, or at least that we'd do worse. I noticed someone say that we'd have done better with Gylfi. On the basis of what?!

Yes, but it ISN'T just the Reading games. We can see the opposite effect with Carlisle.

Occam's Razor and all that.

The only thing common to both clubs is Harte.

Williams, Zurab, Cummings or Reading's opposition cannot explain the fact
that on current form Carlisle are tenth versus second when he left.

"No problem," say the straw-clutchers. We'll ignore the fact that the Harte-for-Reading
games are tougher and use the "No Williams" get-out clause, or invoke the Armstrong
rule and/or the Zurab equation. Now, we can't do that for Carlisle so let's invoke the
"quality of opposition" clause.

[Maguire]

Away to then all-conquering Millwall, away to Boro, home to Ipswich
away to Preston who had just won 6-4 at Leeds and 2-0 at Coventry...

Great spin. You could just as easily say:

Away to Millwall who have a P5 W0 D2 L3 record since we played them - Watford won 6-1 at the Den in the very next game

Away to Boro who have already lost 6 times this season and lie 18th in the table

Home advantage over Ipswich who are about where we are in the league

Away to Preston who lost FIVE straight matches before their recent away double and lie 20th in the table

You see, you can spin this shit any which way you want to.

[Snowball]

To be fair to the straw-clutchers, Carlisle's last five games
have been against the current, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 10th and 18th clubs

But do remember that at this stage of the season the positions these clubs hold
has a fair bit to do with their result against Carlisle!




For example, we beat Ipswich 1-0 with a late goal and they are now 5th, us 7th.

Had that been 0-0 Ipswich, would be and we'd be 8th.

Had IPSWICH won 1-0 they would be clear second and we'd be 11th!

[Snowball]

Away to then all-conquering Millwall, away to Boro, home to Ipswich
away to Preston who had just won 6-4 at Leeds and 2-0 at Coventry...

Great spin. You could just as easily say:

Away to Millwall who have a P5 W0 D2 L3 record since we played them - Watford won 6-1 at the Den in the very next game Away to Boro who have already lost 6 times this season and lie 18th in the table

Home advantage over Ipswich who are about where we are in the league
Away to Preston who lost FIVE straight matches before their recent away double and lie 20th in the table
You see, you can spin this shit any which way you want to.

Oh come on, Maguire. You choose Millwall's form AFTER they played us, but Preston's BEFORE they played us (not including two brilliant away wins on the bounce...

All we can really do, if considering form, is to look at the table before kick-off and consider form, say last six games. When we went to Millwall, they were FLYING. Their form was W3 D1 L1 and they had a GD of SEVEN after just five games.

3-0 v Bristol
4-0 v Hull
1-3 at Leeds
3-1 v Coventry
1-1 v Forest

Three wins out of five and they had also beaten Wycombe and Middlesboro in the cup

So 5 Wins, a draw and one defeat away to Leeds

Their games since then have been against

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7th position clubs

7th Reading 0-0
4th Watford 1-6
5th Ipswich 1-2 Cup
2nd Cardiff 1-2
TOP QPR 0-0
6th Burnley 1-1

Apart from the shock v Watford they are doing well enough

[Maguire]

Away to then all-conquering Millwall, away to Boro, home to Ipswich
away to Preston who had just won 6-4 at Leeds and 2-0 at Coventry...

Great spin. You could just as easily say:

Away to Millwall who have a P5 W0 D2 L3 record since we played them - Watford won 6-1 at the Den in the very next game Away to Boro who have already lost 6 times this season and lie 18th in the table

Home advantage over Ipswich who are about where we are in the league
Away to Preston who lost FIVE straight matches before their recent away double and lie 20th in the table
You see, you can spin this shit any which way you want to.

Oh come on, Maguire. You choose Millwall's form AFTER they played us, but Preston's BEFORE they played us (not including two brilliant away wins on the bounce...

I don't care about "form" so much as I care about how good the opposition are. I'd suggest that, say, Millwall's record over the entire season to date is a rather truer reflection of their ability than only looking at the first four games.

I'm not even passing comment on whatever it is you guys are all arguing about, merely interjecting to point out that picking and choosing which games to include in your analysis is just blind folly. To do this i've illustrated that you can make eg. the Millwall game look tough or relatively easy depending on which particular set of stats you decide to cherry pick.

[georgerob]

Harte was bought to add experience and depth in the defence with Williams playing poorly. Harte has played at the top level of football for many years even though he played a season with Carlisle does not mean he has lost his ability. He has proven he is in his comfort zone playing in the championship.

[readingbedding]

After seeing Harte play for us, he's doing fine.

[loyalroyal4life]

Harte was bought to add experience and depth in the defence with Williams playing poorly. Harte has played at the top level of football for many years even though he played a season with Carlisle does not mean he has lost his ability. He has proven he is in his comfort zone playing in the championship.

He has also proven how shit Williams is. Derms worst signing to date

[readingbedding]

Williams can/may/may not improve.

Wait and see on that one.

[georgerob]

Williams can/may/may not improve.

Wait and see on that one.

I think he will look at Cummings
He will learn a lot from being understudy to Harte

[Mr Angry]

Ok, so I was wrong. I'm sure there will come a time when you will have been wrong about something too.....

Absolutely; I didn't think Cummings would ever play for Reading again.

But the initial feeling was not one of great optimism.....

You weren't prepared to give the guy a chance.

Also, do you think it's perhaps a bit early to claim your massive victory....

Not at all; you said with Harte we would be relegation candidates; we are now 7th.

[Snowball]

I don't care about "form" so much as I care about how good the opposition are. I'd suggest that, say, Millwall's record over the entire season to date is a rather truer reflection of their ability than only looking at the first four games.

I'm not even passing comment on whatever it is you guys are all arguing about, merely interjecting to point out that picking and choosing which games to include in your analysis is just blind folly. To do this i've illustrated that you can make eg. the Millwall game look tough or relatively easy depending on which particular set of stats you decide to cherry pick.

So, explain, how, going INTO the game Millwall v Reading, we could do anything but
consider where they were and how they were playing, having W5 of the previous 7 games?

Should we consider the game based on their FUTURE games,
which is what you seem to have done?

We could argue that it was Reading getting the 0-0 draw at
their place (and showing how to stop them) that "caused"
their drop in results after that 0-0 draw.

I am NOT saying that. The reason they had the "drop-off" in results
is because they played 6 of the top seven clubs! It's pretty hard to get
a tougher set of games!

[SLAMMED]

Another post from "if I didn't start it, it must be shit" SLOLAMMED

Top fishing