Harte Signs

[Royal With Cheese]

If we started playing Pires in attacking midfield, just one man changed. No effect right?

How about Tevez? Or just drop Howard and replace him with Gerrard.

One man, same formation, ten other players the same, but bringing in Tevez, Gerrard or Pires,
if there was an increase in points-per-game won, that wouldn't be due to improving the team,
it would be "just loads of factors."


TWADDLE.

Have I got this wrong or are you now comparing Harte to Tevez or Gerrard?

Of course not. What I AM saying is ONE PLAYER can have a significant effect on a team.

I'd completely agree - if that player was either Gerrard or Tevez.

Don't get me wrong Snowball, I love your stats but are you a woman? I've never seen you back down from an argument once.

[Ian Royal]

You can't describe a team as falling away since a player has left if they haven't. And 2nd place says they haven't, simple as.

The sample size is pathetically small before he left. It's too small since he's left. And any minor difference in points per game or "goal superiority" per game over such small samples is utterly meaningless.

Snowball's basic argument is sound, no one is disagreeing with it that I can see. Harte has had a positive impact here, it's obvious with or without stats. Harte leaving Carlisle is unlikely to mean they are a better team, again, it's blatantly obvious with or without stats. But it's also crystal clear that on current evidence they aren't struggling without him, and there's a hell of a lot more to our performance than just Ian Harte.

The problem is when snowball starts spamming endless stats to try and justify his (usually) basically sound suggestions and then goes over the top. When he refuses to acknowledge the limitations or possible fallibility of his stats and can't take any level of criticism or disagreement.

And yes, one player like Gerrard or Tevez (or Bellamy as a case in point) can have a massive impact on a team at this level. But Harte isn't even close to that quality. Sigurdsson was of significantly high quality to have a significant individual impact... Kebe when he's on the top of his game as well. But players like that are very rare. It tends to be attacks as well, because it is so much easier to make a telling solo contribution than in defence.

[Snowball]

You can't describe a team as falling away since a player has left if they haven't. And 2nd place says they haven't, simple as.

That's because you are a moron. From clear first to second 3 points behind IS falling away.

Since Harte left, Brighton (now top) have gained SEVEN POINTS on Carlisle. Absolute fact.



The sample size is pathetically small before he left. It's too small since he's left.

Seven games is not THAT small a sample. Most stats sites have a current form of SIX games.

And most stats sites have a standard "decay" rate of 10%.
That is the latest game has a 100% weighting, the previous 90%, the one before that 80%.
Seven games ago? That game is weighted at just 40%


And any minor difference in points per game or "goal superiority" per game over such small samples is utterly meaningless.


MINOR difference? What planet are you on? The GD change per game is MASSIVE. 1.25 goals superiority v 0.42 now?

You call that a "MINOR DIFFERENCE"? You call a 37 goal GD over a season "Minor"?


Harte leaving Carlisle is unlikely to mean they are a better team, again, it's blatantly obvious with or without stats.
But it's also crystal clear that on current evidence they aren't struggling without him, and there's a hell of a lot more to our performance than just Ian Harte.

And that's where you are wrong. Because you're so simplistic and don't look
behind headline figures. Did you look to see how Brighton have gained seven points
in seven games? Over a full season that would theoretically mean Carlisle would be
46 points off top. Last season that would have meant one place above relegation.

Five of the current top eight have gained on Carlisle since Harte left.

Trouble is, before this weekend's 1-0 win, when Carlisle were a few places down,
folks were saying, "ah but look how tough their games have been recently." They get
one scraped 1-0 (a big effect when it's game 7 of 7) and now folks are saying they
haven't fallen away, AND THAT IS DUMB.

Sides have been a dozen points clear in a league and suddenly blown it. They may still
hold the top spot but if they've been caught, they've been caught.

But I wouldn't expect anything so subtle to catch your eye. You read the Sun?

And yes, one player like Gerrard or Tevez (or Bellamy as a case in point) can have a massive impact on a team at this level. But Harte isn't even close to that quality. Sigurdsson was of significantly high quality to have a significant individual impact... Kebe when he's on the top of his game as well. But players like that are very rare. It tends to be attacks as well, because it is so much easier to make a telling solo contribution than in defence.


CLASSIC. I was NOT saying Harte was in that class, or that he had had that kind of effect.

I was merely pointing out that a side CAN BE drastically improved by briunging in ONE player.

[Snowball]

PS

I presume you have no problem with the idea of Carlisle being TOP when Harte left?

They had W2 D2 and were averaging 2 points per game, and a GD improvement of 1.25 ppg


Including this weekend's 1-0 win, here is the official form table from Statto


1 6 3 3 0 3 1 7 3 +4 12 2.00 Brighton and Hove A
2 6 3 2 1 3 2 7 3 +4 11 1.83 Bristol Rovers
3 6 3 2 1 4 2 6 3 +3 11 1.83 Southampton
4 6 3 1 2 3 1 10 5 +5 10 1.67 Bournemouth
5 6 3 1 2 4 3 6 3 +3 10 1.67 Carlisle United <<<<<

EVEN YOU MUST YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOP (BEST) AND FIFTH-BEST?

And here is Statto's table since September 4th, Carlisle's first game without Harte

1 7 4 3 0 4 1 9 3 +6 15 2.14 Brighton and Hove A
2 6 3 2 1 3 2 7 3 +4 11 1.83 Bristol Rovers
3 8 4 2 2 2 1 12 11 +1 14 1.75 Exeter City
4 6 3 1 2 3 1 7 6 +1 10 1.67 Swindon Town
5 7 3 2 2 3 1 12 7 +5 11 1.57 Bournemouth
6 7 3 2 2 2 2 10 6 +4 11 1.57 Rochdale
7 7 3 2 2 5 4 6 3 +3 11 1.57 Carlisle United <<<<<<
8 7 3 1 3 1 2 12 11 +1 10 1.43 Peterborough United

The OFFICIAL Form Guide shows that since September 4th
Carlisle United have been SEVENTH-best team in the league.

From 1st to 7th-best in 5 weeks. But they are NOT slipping?

They have dropped away by .43 points per game
.43 ppg is a deficit of TWENTY Points in a season

[Stranded]

But you're not comparing like for like are you. If everywhere uses a minimal form guide of six games then using anything less is mildly distracting at best and as I'm sure you agree over emphasises any impact you may be looking for.

Also what's your control for this analysis?

[Snowball]

But you're not comparing like for like are you. If everywhere uses a minimal form guide of six games then using anything less is mildly distracting at best and as I'm sure you agree over emphasises any impact you may be looking for.


No it doesn't "over-emphasise" anything. It's simple facts. Harte = P4 W2 D2.

It's impossible to use six league games "with Harte" as he was only there for
the first four games, so we use the maximum possible, ie "all of them"

You don't doubt they WERE top, I presume? Had they lost their next
two games they would still have been W2 D2 L2 8 points from 6 games = 1.67 ppg
identical to their most-recent six games official form placing.

But of course, predicting such a loss of form would be a little silly (but don't let it stop you)

And subsequently we HAVE used six league games (the standard) as well as showing seven league games ("all league games without Harte)


Also what's your control for this analysis?

I have a degree in psychology (among other things) and I know what a control is.

In this case to ask for a control is plain stupid.

This is live data and not data resulting from manipulation of events.


You might as well ask, "What's the control for suggesting that QPR
are currently playing better than any other Championship team.

[Snowball]

And you can look at Reading in the same way.

Prior to Harte 13th-best on form for all league games.

Since Harte has arrived 4th best in the league (only QPR better defensively)

1 6 5 1 0 5 1 13 1 +12 16 2.67 Queens Park Rangers
2 6 4 1 1 2 0 16 7 +09 13 2.17 Watford
3 6 4 0 2 2 1 11 9 +02 12 2.00 Norwich City
4 6 3 2 1 4 1 09 4 +05 11 1.83 Reading
5 6 2 4 0 1 1 08 5 +03 10 1.67 Nottingham Forest
6 6 3 1 2 2 1 09 8 +01 10 1.67 Swansea City
7 6 3 1 2 2 2 07 6 +01 10 1.67 Cardiff City
8 6 2 3 1 3 2 10 6 +04 09 1.50 Burnley


So Carlisle went from FIRST to SEVENTH
While Reading go from 13TH to 4TH




But it's coincidence

[Starfish]

I would just like to point out that Hoffenheim won their first three games of the season. They then signed Gylfi and won 2 points from the next possible 12. He played in all four games and although he scored twice and is proving popular with the Hoffenheim 'faithful', he is obviously proving to be a very bad influence on a once fantastic team. GYLFI OUT!!!!!!!

[PlasticRoyale]

I would just like to point out that Hoffenheim won their first three games of the season. They then signed Gylfi and won 2 points from the next possible 12. He played in all four games and although he scored twice and is proving popular with the Hoffenheim 'faithful', he is obviously proving to be a very bad influence on a once fantastic team. GYLFI OUT!!!!!!!

Fairly conclusive evidence that he's shit

[Arch]

I would just like to point out that Hoffenheim won their first three games of the season. They then signed Gylfi and won 2 points from the next possible 12. He played in all four games and although he scored twice and is proving popular with the Hoffenheim 'faithful', he is obviously proving to be a very bad influence on a once fantastic team. GYLFI OUT!!!!!!!

Fairly conclusive evidence that he's shit

Even allowing for the definitive six games required for a completely adequate sample, they can't get enough points to avoid that conclusion. Obviously there may be some other factor than the Gylfi Effect, but combine Hoffenheim's form post-transfer with Reading's and....

[Snowball]

Reading's points-per-game without Gylfi is higher than Reading's ppg with Gylfi
and that difference has been increasing as games mount up.

FACT

Read into that whatever you want.



That Gylfi is a great player is without doubt,
so HOW could his removal make a team better
or his addition make a team worse?


SERIOUSLY, instead of wearing blinkers and going nah-nah-nah, try to answer the question.


1. At Reading we changed the way the side played to accommodate Gylfi.

We were a classic fast-moving 4-4-2 set-up and changed to 4-5-1 because, quite rightly,
Mac felt he had to find room for such a prodigious talent. Gylfi was weak defensively, ordinary
on the wing, but could score great individual goals, brilliant free-kicks, cheeky penalties
and was our lucky mascot. He also played some excellent assists. His goals perhaps covered
up those times he disappeared, and covered up the less-efficient set-up we had for the rest of the team.


2. How might Gylfi's addition be worsening Hoffenheim's results, despite the fact that Gylfi is a fantastic player?

NOTE the following are merely suggestions or ideas. They are not my beliefs.

(a) Well, he will not be "streets-better" than whoever he is replacing (unlike at Reading)
(b) His extras" like great goals and maybe some assists, may not compensate for his other (relative) weaknesses like "disappearing".
(c) Perhaps there's some disquiet, jealousy from players displaced. Who knows?
(d) Perhaps the team is being asked to play differently now and that doesn't suit the squad.


I am NOT saying, ANY of these things are the truth, but it is not always the case that 11 great players make a great team
or that adding one great player will automatically improve a team

[RobRoyal]

Reading's points-per-game without Gylfi is higher than Reading's ppg with Gylfi
and that difference has been increasing as games mount up.

FACT

Read into that whatever you want.



That Gylfi is a great player is without doubt,
so HOW could his removal make a team better
or his addition make a team worse?


SERIOUSLY, instead of wearing blinkers and going nah-nah-nah, try to answer the question.


1. At Reading we changed the way the side played to accommodate Gylfi.

We were a classic fast-moving 4-4-2 set-up and changed to 4-5-1 because, quite rightly,
Mac felt he had to find room for such a prodigious talent. Gylfi was weak defensively, ordinary
on the wing, but could score great individual goals, brilliant free-kicks, cheeky penalties
and was our lucky mascot. He also played some excellent assists. His goals perhaps covered
up those times he disappeared, and covered up the less-efficient set-up we had for the rest of the team.


2. How might Gylfi's addition be worsening Hoffenheim's results, despite the fact that Gylfi is a fantastic player?

NOTE the following are merely suggestions or ideas. They are not my beliefs.

(a) Well, he will not be "streets-better" than whoever he is replacing (unlike at Reading)
(b) His extras" like great goals and maybe some assists, may not compensate for his other (relative) weaknesses like "disappearing".
(c) Perhaps there's some disquiet, jealousy from players displaced. Who knows?
(d) Perhaps the team is being asked to play differently now and that doesn't suit the squad.


I am NOT saying, ANY of these things are the truth, but it is not always the case that 11 great players make a great team
or that adding one great player will automatically improve a team

Regression to the mean, Snowball.

Reading are better than our first 3 or 4 results suggested. Hoffenheim weren't going to win every game of the season.

[Snowball]

Regression to the mean, Snowball.

Reading are better than our first 3 or 4 results suggested. Hoffenheim weren't going to win every game of the season.

That is NOT what "regression to the mean" means.

Did Arsenal in their undefeated year "regress to the mean"?

Are QPR this season "regressing to the mean"?

Did Reading in their 106 season "regress to the mean"?

[Snowball]

Regression to the mean, Snowball.

Reading are better than our first 3 or 4 results suggested. Hoffenheim weren't going to win every game of the season.

This is tortured logic.

Reading had 5 points from their 5 games.

If they had got 5 from 5 in their next 5, presumably you'd've said 10 from 10, that's how good they are...

If they had lost their next 5 you'd've said "5 from 10, relegation material"...

[pea]

Lol at trying to explain Hoffenheims form since they signed gylfi on the basis of the sixty minutes or so he's been on the pitch.

How about they were punching above their weight at the start of the season and sold their most creative midfielder and haven't fully recovered

[Snowball]

Sides change in terms of personnel but also in how individuals step up to the plate.

Kebe, last season got 47 Shots 12 Goals 07 Assists from 33 (13) = 36 Games

This season he is already up to 24 Shots 4 Goals 2 Assists from 10 Games
and this multiplied by 4.6 for a whole season's projected figures gives 110 shots, 18.4 goals, 9 Assists

Compare that to Gylfi last year

124 Shots 20 Goals 10 Assists from 39 games Gylfi (Playing off the striker)
110 Shots 18 Goals 09 Assists from 46 games Kebe (Winger)


Howard in 33 (06) games had 5 assists last season
Howard in 08 (00) games has 4 assists this season and is projected to have 18 assists if he maintains this rate

If you look at the shots statistics it looks pretty obvious that the ball was fed to Gylfi
an awful lot, at the expense of feeding the out-and-out strikers

124 Shots 20 Goals 1 in 06.2 Shots Gylfi
059 Shots 12 Goals 1 in 04.9 Shots Church
054 Shots 03 Goals 1 in 18.0 Shots McAnuff
053 Shots 03 Goals 1 in 17.7 Shots Howard
050 Shots 09 Goals 1 in 05.6 Shots Rasiak
047 Shots 12 Goals 1 in 03.9 Shots Kebe
038 Shots 09 Goals 1 in 04.2 Shots Long
017 Shots 02 Goals 1 in 08.5 Shots Mills
016 Shots 04 Goals 1 in 04.0 Shots Pearce

Kebe, Long, Church, Rasiak (and Pearce) were all "deadlier" than Gylfi but they had just
200 shots between the five of them compared with Gylfi, 124 on his own.

Why that is, selfishness on Gylfi's part, bravery at taking on the shots by Gylfi, or
other players looking to feed him, (frees and pens of course) I don't know, but he was nowhere near the most
lethal player, yet he had 3.25 times the shots of our number 9. That's unusual to say the least.

Incidentally, take out his pens and his accuracy rate will plummet

[Snowball]

How about they were punching above their weight at the start of the season and sold their most creative midfielder and haven't fully recovered

Yes, and they are know for starting fast and fading, aren't they?

[Wycombe Royal]

Snowball - have you ever heard the saying "less is more"?

[Snowball]

Snowball - have you ever heard the saying "less is more"?

Sure

But I am talking to the crowd that told me

Kebe is useless, absolute gash.
McAnuff has never made it with any club and will fail with us too
Long will never be a footballer
Cummings will never be a footballer
Armstrong is a cripple that Sheffield United couldn't wait to get rid of
Ian Harte is a thousand years old and will relegate us
Bikey is crap.
Stephen Hunt is a useless, selfish dirty pikey
Griffin is a joke, too old, too slow.
Gunnarson is too old (trotted out once a year)
Karacan is not up to Championship level, get rid.
Ditto HRK
Federici is an over-hyped, error-prone keeper, get rid.
Pearce is USELESS, too slow and has the turning circle of an oil-tanker


etc

[Svlad Cjelli]

Snowball - have you ever heard the saying "less is more"?

Sure

But I am talking to the crowd that told me

Kebe is useless, absolute gash.
McAnuff has never made it with any club and will fail with us too
Long will never be a footballer
Cummings will never be a footballer
Armstrong is a cripple that Sheffield United couldn't wait to get rid of
Ian Harte is a thousand years old and will relegate us
Bikey is crap.
Stephen Hunt is a useless, selfish dirty pikey
Griffin is a joke, too old, too slow.
Gunnarson is too old (trotted out once a year)
Karacan is not up to Championship level, get rid.
Ditto HRK
Federici is an over-hyped, error-prone keeper, get rid.
Pearce is USELESS, too slow and has the turning circle of an oil-tanker


etc

And those people are wrong, and lots of people disagree with those posters.

But, categorically, you will not be able to prove them wrong with your statistics.