Harte Signs

[ZacNaloen]

So it is chicken and egg then...

His touch is good because his confidence is up after working on it, or his confidence is up because his touch has been good.

Just found this again.


No it's not chicken and egg. You can't get good touch from confidence alone, you have to have done the work. The muscle memory has to exist. Lack of confidence can cause you to override that muscle memory, the muscle memory with high confidence = player on the top of their game.

Having the basic technique is a given though, it's the changes in that technique being applied (the confidence in many cases) that dictate one week to the next not the learning of how to control the ball by doing it in training. Those basics are learnt years before.

Which means it's not chicken and egg.

[Svlad Cjelli]

....

Therefore HARTE HAS IMPROVED THE SIDE

Is anyone actually disputing that?

What is in dispute is whether you can realistically use statistics to prove quantitatively exactly how much Harte has improved the side.

[ZacNaloen]

Isn't that a red herring?


Snowballs been forced into having to try and prove how much he's improved the side by others, an impossible task with the kind of stats fans have access to.

Originally he's was using his statistics to back up his point that Harte has improved the side. Nothing more.


Some people seem to be missing the point, as painful as numbers are to look at... they aren't his argument, they are his evidence.

Ergo his argument here is that Harte improved the side. His numbers provide his evidence for this opinion. His evidence may or may not be flawed, I'm no statistician so I can't comment on that.
However, gut reaction seems to be he's made a few people look a little silly since he's been on the board though.

Maybe we should gather a statistical analysis of how often Snowballs been right than wrong, and then use a control of random guesses. Short of drafting in my girlfriend I think Ian Royal would do.

[Snowball]

....

Therefore HARTE HAS IMPROVED THE SIDE

Is anyone actually disputing that?

What is in dispute is whether you can realistically use statistics to prove quantitatively exactly how much Harte has improved the side.

I see. Where, exactly have I EVER said I am showing "quantitatively exactly how much Harte has improved the side"?

Because I haven't.

I have posted stats to try and show OBJECTIVELY that the thousand-year-old, too-slow, relegation-fodder has-been has improved the side.

[Snowball]

Short of drafting in my girlfriend I think Ian Royal would do.

!!

[Stranded]

No more obstinate than someone who goes out of their way to avoid considering the non appearance of Marcus Williams in the team as an equally valid factor in making us a better side.

That is such a dumb argument!

(a) I think Harte has improved the side.

versus

(b) I think getting rid of Williams has improved the side.


BUT BUT BUT Harte REPLACED Williams.


Therefore, by your argument, Harte is better than Williams

Therefore HARTE HAS IMPROVED THE SIDE

To be pedantic, Shaun Cummings actually replaced Williams at Leicester. Harte then replaced Cummings who moved to the right.

[Snowball]

No more obstinate than someone who goes out of their way to avoid considering the non appearance of Marcus Williams in the team as an equally valid factor in making us a better side.

That is such a dumb argument!

(a) I think Harte has improved the side.
versus
(b) I think getting rid of Williams has improved the side.
BUT BUT BUT Harte REPLACED Williams.
Therefore, by your argument, Harte is better than Williams
Therefore HARTE HAS IMPROVED THE SIDE

To be pedantic, Shaun Cummings actually replaced Williams at Leicester. Harte then replaced Cummings who moved to the right.

Yes, and that's why I measure the four games up to and including the Leicester game versus the games since (when Harte played)

[Stranded]

Fair enough, just pointing out that your little hissy was technically incorrect because that's the mood I'm in today...

[Snowball]

Fair enough, just pointing out that your little hissy was technically incorrect because that's the mood I'm in today...

The fact that a player played one game in Williams' place
doesn't mean that the player who has played in Williams'
place ever since (six games and counting) didn't "replace Williams"
does it?

Say Hamer came in for one game, replacing Federici
then Mcarthy played 100 games on the trot.

Surely we would say Mcarthy replaced Federici as our number one?

[Hoop Blah]

Originally he's was using his statistics to back up his point that Harte has improved the side. Nothing more.

Some people seem to be missing the point, as painful as numbers are to look at... they aren't his argument, they are his evidence.

No doubt in my mind that Harte has been an improvement on Williams, I think the arguement is that snowballs evidence is pretty shakey because Harte for Williams isn't the only differences between the improved sets of results.

It's his application of his stats and use of them to prove something that they don't really prove that has sparked this dull debate.

[ZacNaloen]

Why are you even bothering to argue with him if you don't disagree, his stats an are a not very interesting addendum to a point you agree with. Just how tedious is this debate?

[Hoop Blah]

Why are you even bothering to argue with him if you don't disagree, his stats an are a not very interesting addendum to a point you agree with. Just how tedious is this debate?

I disagree with his use of stats here, and the way he constantly spams the board with reems of pointless stats, and as I'm having a quiet couple of days at work I just had the time pick him up on it.

[Woodcote Royal]

You're missing my essential point, which is that trying to prove anything about the effect of one individual player on such a complex, inter-connected and multi-faceted game as football with statistics is virtually impossible

Most statistics can be bent to help support the views of those who choose to employ them but to suggest it's impossible to illustrate the impact one player has on a team is utter nonsense. Snowballs stats are not perfect but they've been more than good enough on a number of occasions to make mugs out of those who never tire of posting unsubstantiated rubbish and that's what many don't like.

HINT

Why don't some of you change the habit of a life time and actually watch a player for a few games, give him a while to settle and THEN offer an opinion based on some first hand knowledge?

I do hope that's not aimed at me - all I'm arguing against is the validity of stats on how a team does to judge the worth of an individual player. I don't think you'll ever find a premature judgement or a generalisation about players from me.

Your username is certainly not recognised by me as one of those with a history going back years of rubbishing new signings based largely on the fee, their age and where they've come from. So, no

[Stranded]

Fair enough, just pointing out that your little hissy was technically incorrect because that's the mood I'm in today...

The fact that a player played one game in Williams' place
doesn't mean that the player who has played in Williams'
place ever since (six games and counting) didn't "replace Williams"
does it?

Say Hamer came in for one game, replacing Federici
then Mcarthy played 100 games on the trot.

Surely we would say Mcarthy replaced Federici as our number one?

Ah but it could be that there was just a more pressing need to move Cummings to right back allowing Harte to come in? Could it not be argued that it is Griffin's absence that has had a positive effect as we hadn't won a game until his injury?

[Snowball]

Ah but it could be that there was just a more pressing need to move Cummings to right back allowing Harte to come in? Could it not be argued that it is Griffin's absence that has had a positive effect as we hadn't won a game until his injury?

Sure. We can ignore Harte's two goals as well

[Stranded]

Yes we could, as neither of them were "key" goals in their games (bar GD effect of course) - ie it could be said we would have won both fixtures without those goals - esp as one was a 90th min free kick.

[Snowball]

Yes we could, as neither of them were "key" goals in their games (bar GD effect of course) - ie it could be said we would have won both fixtures without those goals - esp as one was a 90th min free kick.

Can't agree with that. Both goals converted slender 1-0 leads into
much stronger 2-0 leads where finally it looks like we might actually win.

We all now how often 1-0 becomes 1-1.

They were "killer-goals"

And didn't we get relegated from the Premiership by 2 goals in GD?



Answer, no it was a GD of 3

[Hoop Blah]

2 goals from set pieces...how do you know someone else wouldn't have scored from those deadball situations?

One was a penalty, our second of the game (and an excellent penalty by the way) and after we'd already seen one scored and you'd have to think Long would've stood a good chance of scoring the 2nd.

The other was the 90th minute free kick, again a very good free kick, but we've got other players who could've scored from it instead..

[Wycombe Royal]

The other was the 90th minute free kick, again a very good free kick, but we've got other players who could've scored from it instead..

Have we? Who? I can't think of anyone in our squad who has scored direct from a free kick for us?

[Hoop Blah]

Noel Hunt for one.

I'm pretty sure Howard has done as well, although he obviously wasn't on the pitch at the time. I was thinking that McAnuff had as well, but I think I'm probably wrong on that front.