Harte Signs

[RobRoyal]

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"...

Please don't condescend to me by telling me what I would have said. You don't know me, Snowball, so cut the bullsh*t.

Before the season I expected Reading to finish between 12th and 6th place. I don't know a lot about German football but I'd have expected Hoffenheim to finish in the top 6, though some way short of 1st.

Because of the above I find it somewhat absurd to attempt to identify specific reasons for an apparent up-turn in the first case and a drop-of in form in the second. Both clubs are moving towards where I would have expected them to finish, which is exactly what one would expected to happen as the season progresses.

[Snowball]

Both clubs are moving towards where I would have expected them to finish, which is exactly what one would expected to happen as the season progresses.

Well that explains everything. They are where YOU expected them to be, and they are regressing to YOUR mean


Of course the people who thought Reading would be top two or 3rd/4th/5th
or mid-table, or relegation strugglers, well Reading aren't regressing to THEIR
mean but then they are all idiots who know nothing, right?

[Arch]

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.

Statistical reasoning according to Snowball summarized in a nutshell.

[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.

Statistical reasoning according to Snowball summarized in a nutshell.

What the f---?

I make ZERO reasoning. I simply state an actual fact and say, "Read into that whatever you want..."


So what "reasoning" are you talking about?

[Wax Jacket]

if only "he drifts in and out of games" could be so neatly quantified

[Hoop Blah]

So what "reasoning" are you talking about?

So what's your argument then?

Why do you keep throwing out more and more stats if it's not to disprove a statement by anyone else? Sounds to me like you're backing up an opinion and some reasoning not just stating a fact...obviously my poor recall might've blurred things a bit!

[Snowball]

if only "he drifts in and out of games" could be so neatly quantified

It probably can on something like Pro-Zone

[Snowball]

So what "reasoning" are you talking about?

So what's your argument then? Why do you keep throwing out more and more stats if it's not to disprove a statement by anyone else? Sounds to me like you're backing up an opinion and some reasoning not just stating a fact...obviously my poor recall might've blurred things a bit!

Why can't simple stats be posted FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS/IMPRESSIONS?

When I first posted these stats the samples were allegedly too small

They have got larger and larger and the effect has remained. Fact.

[Hoop Blah]

The effect is a reasoning/opinion derived from your reading of the stats though, they aren't a product of the stats.

[Snowball]

The effect is a reasoning/opinion derived from your reading of the stats though, they aren't a product of the stats.

OK, phrase that as the goal-difference improvement per game, the points per game, previously indicated are still being verified as the sample-size increases

[Snowball]

P16 W08 (50%) D04 (25%) L04 (25%) 28-19 Match Average 1.75-1.19 GD = 0.56 pg "28 Points from 16 games" = 1.75 ppg = "80.5 point season" Without Gylfi

P46 W17 (37%) D13 (28%) L16 (35%) 77-66 Match Average 1.67-1.43 GD = 0.24 pg "64 Points from 46 games" = 1.39 ppg = "64.0 point season" With Gylfi (includes 3 sub appearances)

P43 W17 (40%) D13 (30%) L13 (30%) 74-56 Match Average 1.70-1.30 GD = 0.40 pg "64 Points from 43 games" = 1.49 ppg = "68.4 point season" With Gylfi, starts only. <<<<<

Since Gylfi first played a competitive match, Reading FC have now played 16 times without him, winning half those games, losing just 4 games
and accruing the equivalent of 1.75 points per game, enough to get into the play-offs, 3rd place for the last two seasons.

The above includes cup games.

By adding in Gylfi's 3 sub appearances we get 46 games, same as a full season for comparison
but that is unfair as when coming on as a sub, the player gets last chance to influence
the game. Unlike, for example, Shane Long, Gylfi has never come on as sub and won a game for us.

THEREFORE YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE THIRD ROW ABOVE "68.4 POINT SEASON" TO SEE GYLFI'S STARTS-ONLY.

[Snowball]

LEAGUE GAMES ONLY

Without Gylfi we have won 58.33% of our league games

P12 W07 (58.3%) D02 (16.7%) L03 (23.3%) 21-12 Match Average 1.75-1.00 GD = +0.75 pg = 23 Points from 12 league games = 1.92 ppg = 88 point season Without Gylfi
P38 W14 (36.8%) D12 (31.6%) L12 (31.6%) 65-48 Match Average 1.71-1.26 GD = 0.45 pg = 54 Points from 43 league games = 1.42 ppg = 65 point season With Gylfi, starts only.

Without Gylfi, League Games Only, we would end up 23 points higher and with a GD +18 better.

58.3% wins equates to 27 wins in a 46-game season, only 4 wins less than the 106-point season

[Ian Royal]

Three posts - oxf*rd all of any real meaning.

[Snowball]

Three posts - oxf*rd all of any real meaning.

Proof that you are seriously stupid.

A win ratio of 58% is quite brilliant, and that's precisely what Reading FC have achieved WITHOUT Gylfi playing.

Would it be easier for you if we added a plastic palm tree, or put it on the radio?

[Ian Royal]

Has snowball mentioned that the statistics actually show a bigger impact on our results and performances for Cummings return to the team compared to Harte's entrance btw?

Oh and I've just had a thought... could snowball be the mentally unstable, socially retarded, weirdo who was sitting in front of me, Affers, Compo, Troli and co at Norwich away the year before last... snowball is showing similar unfathomable obsessional hatred of taking inflatables to a game and appears equally incapable of appreciating other people's points of view.

[Mr Angry]

BTW - Carlisle are now 2nd.

[Arch]

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.

Statistical reasoning according to Snowball summarized in a nutshell.

What the f---?

I make ZERO reasoning. I simply state an actual fact and say, "Read into that whatever you want..."


So what "reasoning" are you talking about?

[Snowball]

BTW - Carlisle are now 2nd.

Second yes, but seventh on current form, only second because they WERE top

[Snowball]

Has snowball mentioned that the statistics actually show a bigger impact on our results and performances for Cummings return to the team compared to Harte's entrance btw?

Oh and I've just had a thought... could snowball be the mentally unstable, socially retarded, weirdo who was sitting in front of me, Affers, Compo, Troli and co at Norwich away the year before last... snowball is showing similar unfathomable obsessional hatred of taking inflatables to a game and appears equally incapable of appreciating other people's points of view.

No, I'm revealing my hatred OF THE CARRIER, one in particular, and of a particular tree.

[Snowball]

PS

A win ratio of 58% is quite brilliant, and that's precisely what Reading FC have achieved WITHOUT Gylfi playing.