Long - Time to go.

[Snowball]

Wimb has posted pretty much what I'm thinking, but more succinctly than I could manage.

You accuse me of being selective, but then decide that my stat 'every Long appearance back to the start of last season' is inferior to 'the last 2 full seasons', which happens to exclude his 1 from 15 games this season, which I thought would be relevant when discussing his current usefulness to the team.

You are just emphasising how you make the stats fit your argument.

I have been posting 2 complete seasons PLUS this season, all 3 combined.

[brendywendy]

If the tiny bit of negative rumbling that's been heard at games is getting to Long then you have to worry about his mental fortitude.

Is he the softest football since mummys boy Beauchamp?

I bet the players give each other a hell of a lot more stick than us mere supporters, their paymasters, do and I can't stand this attitude of not being able to handle a bit of citicism or barracking (and that's throughout football not just our poor little darlings).

just the squad pulling together imo

[Snowball]

Grow up. I've been abundantly clear all the way through that my stats were for league games. All the way through.

Bull

[Wycombe Royal]

Snowball - you seem to be ignoring my post where I have pointed out innaccuracies in your stats. Take a look at my last post on the "Without looking" topic..........

[Snowball]

[

And totally ignore whether those sub appearances are 80 minutes or 1 minute?

I have shown on the other topic that you approximaton of subs appearances is very innaccurate.[/quote]

When I did it last year for Long it was very close

Anyway I have no done it for MINUTES played.

Yes I collated the whole lot (for last season)

4,659.00 Federici
4,521.00 Bertrand
3,522.00 McAf
3,209.00 Gylf
3,005.00 Kebe
2,825.00 Howard
2,819.00 Ingi
2,629.00 Mills
2,411.00 Church
2,357.00 Pearce
2,246.00 Long
2,178.00 Griff
2,168.00 Karacan
1,860.00 Tabb
1,831.00 Gunnarson
1,731.00 Rasiak
1,390.00 Mateovsky
1,292.00 Cisse
1,075.00 Kish
0,810.00 Cummings
0,677.00 Odea
0,590.00 HRK
0,540.00 Rosenior
0,536.00 Hunt
0,338.00 Davies
0,214.00 Harper
0,201.00 Hamer
0,180.00 Mooney
0,161.00 Thor
0,133.00 Bignall
0,090.00 Armstrong
0,070.00 Kelly
0,035.00 Antonio

[Snowball]

Games to Score a Goal last Season

Based on exact minutes on the pitch

PENALTIES EXCLUDED

00.74 Games Bignall
02.14 Games Rasia
02.44 Games Church
02.74 Games Gylfi
02.78 Games Kebe
03.12 Games Long
05.96 Games Noel Hunt
06.55 Games Pearce
13.04 Games McAnuff
14.61 Games Mills
15.69 Games How'd
50.23 Games Bert

[cmonurz]

Grow up. I've been abundantly clear all the way through that my stats were for league games. All the way through.

Bull

More untrue accusations. My original post, on page 39, on this subject. I am clearly talking about league games. Perhaps you could just admit you missed that bit, instead of another rude response?

And Snowball, Long's goal yesterday was his second in open play in his last 26 league appearances (25 starts). Prior to that he scored 4 in 4 league games, after another drought back to the start of last season.

So from the first league game last season his record for goals in open play is:

1. 15 games, no goals
2. 4 games, 4 goals
3. 26 games, 2 goals

I won't wait for an apology. Although seen as the worst I've ever posted in your direction is 'grow up', an apology for calling me stupid, a moron and a twat, and that you have no respect for me, is also due. I won't wait for that either.

[Snowball]

Snowball - you seem to be ignoring my post where I have pointed out innaccuracies in your stats. Take a look at my last post on the "Without looking" topic..........

No, not ignoring it, doing some collating.

But I said "within a couple of per cent"

Last Season Long played 24 (12)

The calculation says that is 26 Games or 2,340 Minutes

The actual number of minutes Long played was slightly LESS (making his figures BETTER)

2,340 Minutes - Estimate using Formula
2,246 Minutes - Actual Minutes Played

0,094 Minutes (Over Estimated Minutes) = 4.01%

I think that's pretty good for a rule-of-thumb

[cmonurz]

If your calculation over-estimates, how on another thread has Wycombe shown that your calculation of 19.3 games for Long based on the formula was actually 21.7?

[Wycombe Royal]

Snowball - you seem to be ignoring my post where I have pointed out innaccuracies in your stats. Take a look at my last post on the "Without looking" topic..........

No, not ignoring it, doing some collating.

But I said "within a couple of per cent"

Last Season Long played 24 (12)

The calculation says that is 26 Games or 2,340 Minutes

The actual number of minutes Long played was slightly LESS (making his figures BETTER)

2,340 Minutes - Estimate using Formula
2,246 Minutes - Actual Minutes Played

0,094 Minutes (Over Estimated Minutes) = 4.01%

I think that's pretty good for a rule-of-thumb

It doesn't make it better for the season before, as I posted on the other topic (2.4 matches more than you showed were played by Long). You also got your years muddled up.

If you are going to religiously rely on statistics to make your point I would advise you to make sure they are accurate otherwise they have zero credibility (and by default that mean you do as well). That is just some friendly advice and not an insult btw.

I have check relatively few of your stats but when I do I find they are wrong - Shane Longs 28 yard goal, your estimation of subs appearances, even something simple like years. How much else is wrong?

[Ian Royal]

Nope. I think that one should note both the number of full appearances and the number of sub appearances to understand the performance of and contribution by the particular player.

And totally ignore whether those sub appearances are 80 minutes or 1 minute?

Stop being contrary and looking for a fight and actually take the time to try and understand the points others are making, rather than assuming you know, getting it spectacularly wrong and going off on one. Something you are horrendously guilty of.

I think I can safely say that Baines, sorry Bandini, is saying that you should present the statistics as:
Starts (Subs) Goals
80 (83) 32

Those are the facts and it is for individuals to interpret them as necessary.

80 (83) = 93.8 "Games" = 32 Goals

The bold bit is the problem as it is not a factual statistic, it is your individual assumption of how you can extrapolate subs and starts into one thing. Which you can't accurately do, even if the minutes add up, the circumstances of 5 sub appearances do not equal the circumstances of 1 starting appearance for plenty of reasons many people, myself included, have already pointed out to you.

You come across on here as a stereotypical teenager, completely incapable of understand the fact that other people have opinions that may differ from yours, yet be equally if not more valid. You throw around petty insults despite being asked time and again to stop and behave like a grown up, giving no consideration for how others may feel because of your comments.

[Snowball]

If your calculation over-estimates, how on another thread has Wycombe shown that your calculation of 19.3 games for Long based on the formula was actually 21.7?

I have no idea. Haven't got that far yet.

That sounds like it must be two seasons ago.

I've just done the ACTUAL MINUTES for all the players for last season (the whole season)

Long is 94 minutes out (a game, wow)

Rasiak is 54 minutes out

Kebe was 160 minutes out

Church 244

Gylfi 286

and all in the same direction, so now favouritism

The worst case for a whole season, using the rule of thumb is to suggest a player that actually played

38 (05) = 38.8 actually played 35.62

Jeez for an instant rule of thumb I think that's damn good

[Ian Royal]

It's not bad, but it's still wrong, and can potentially be substantially out as has been shown. Far better to just stick with the facts.

[Snowball]

I think that's pretty good for a rule-of-thumb

It doesn't make it better for the season before, as I posted on the other topic (2.4 matches more than you showed were played by Long). You also got your years muddled up.

Hello? I said it was a rule-of-thumb and when I checked it (way back) against actual minutes it was within a couple of per cent.

If it OVER-estimates Long's games that makes Long's Goals-per-game (or goals per 90-mins played BETTER

Checking it against last season, it's not a bad measure.

Certainly a lot quicker than laboriously counting minutes.

If you are going to religiously rely on statistics to make your point I would advise you to make sure they are accurate otherwise they have zero credibility (and by default that mean you do as well). That is just some friendly advice and not an insult btw.

It has ALWAYS been a rule of thumb, and I posted actual results versus the calculations and showed how close they were. Seems damn odd that people are NOW complaining about the RoT. Perhaps it's because when I did it the manager was Coppel and Rodgers/McDermott don't work quite the same sub-wise.

I have check relatively few of your stats but when I do I find they are wrong - Shane Longs 28 yard goal, your estimation of subs appearances, even something simple like years. How much else is wrong?

That's a little unfair. I couldn't remember the specific goal. The OS said, "Got the ball 30 yards out beat his man and struck it" (or something to that effect) so I knocked off a couple of yards. Then I found a video of it and posted that (tho' you didn't believe the BBC report) it was just inside the box

[Snowball]

It's not bad, but it's still wrong, and can potentially be substantially out as has been shown. Far better to just stick with the facts.

Here we go again.

80 (83) isn't a fact it's a meaningless pair of numbers

It might mean 80 starts completing 90 minutes (Doyle)
It might mean 80 starts completing just 60 minutes (Noel Hunt)

The 83 sub appearances might be coming on in the 65th minute as a plan
or coming on in the last 3 minutes just to waste time.


And if you go look at ACTUAL FIGURES, what seems to happen a lot is new players (kids I mean) get brought on for TINY amounts of time.

Antonio had one start (112 Minutes) which is worth more than his other 9 appearances combined

112 Cup
045 Cup

60.16% of all minutes in two games

22
19
15
13
09
08
08
08

8 further sub appearances for a total of 096 minutes

Incidentally, 1 game that went to extra time plus 9 sub appearance

Rule of thumb says 2.5 games = 225 minutes, actual is 259, 27 of which were in extra time... a whole 7 minutes out. Wow!

[Snowball]

If your calculation over-estimates, how on another thread has Wycombe shown that your calculation of 19.3 games for Long based on the formula was actually 21.7?

I hope that's true (not checked it yet

19.30 Estimate 21.70 Actual Season X
26.00 Estimate 24.96 Actual Season Y

45.30 Estimate 46.66 Actual, 2 seasons Combined


A rule of thumb that takes all the vagaries of weather, injuries, managerial decisions, fitness, sickness and predicts that the games played were 45.30, is just 1.36 games out.

if that's not a good Rule of Thumb, what is?

[cmonurz]

It's not though, is it. You clearly 'know' stats theory - you have one set of data that is 2.40 games out, and the other one that is 1.04 games out the other direction, a swing of 3.44 games, i.e. the 'rule' can't particularly be trusted.

[Ian Royal]

Er, It's an undisputable fact the player has started 80 games, and made 83 subsitute appearances (assuming your numbers are actually right this time).

93.5 games is your personal estimate and therefore not in any way a fact.

And I say again, it doesn't matter how close it is, it isn't exact and it isn't a fact, despite you presenting it as, as good as a fact. It's you imposing your interpretation on others rather than sticking to the tried, tested and incontestable.

[Snowball]

It's not though, is it. You clearly 'know' stats theory - you have one set of data that is 2.40 games out, and the other one that is 1.04 games out the other direction, a swing of 3.44 games, i.e. the 'rule' can't particularly be trusted.

Que?

When you test, say a questionnaire, you can split it, first-half/second-half, or first and last quarter v the middle, or odd v even questions... and you hope that the splits will measure the same thing, ie produce the same "answers"

But that's something toiled over by experimenters.

To have a rule of thumb that's a couple per cent out, and almost always one way is a good thing. If it says, 99 games when typically it's 95, and it does that for virtually all players it's a very useful, workable rule of thumb, but obviously not as good as actually looking up all the minutes played and adding them up.


Some clubs like Boro actually give the minutes-total per player for the season. Handy that

But if you don't thing a rule of thumb for 36 disparate appearances that gives 2,340 minutes against an actual 2,246, then there must be something slightly off with you.

[Hoop Blah]

If the tiny bit of negative rumbling that's been heard at games is getting to Long then you have to worry about his mental fortitude.

Is he the softest football since mummys boy Beauchamp?

I bet the players give each other a hell of a lot more stick than us mere supporters, their paymasters, do and I can't stand this attitude of not being able to handle a bit of citicism or barracking (and that's throughout football not just our poor little darlings).

just the squad pulling together imo

They'd be better served doing that in private than instead of bascially pointing fingers at their own supporters and coming across as whinging namby pamby sulking kids.