The Snowball stat thread

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Last 6 games and last 10 games, are about right for current form IMHO, or 8 and 12.

That's a STATEMENT not an argument.

How do you argue your point with someone who says "8 games is not enough, I think 9 is the lowest, but 12 ideally" ?

SB will this form table carry on up to game 46 and the end of the season?

I have said COUNTLESS times, why I have taken the Games 7-46 stance,
but will repeat it for someone who was on Mars the 99 times I actually said it.

I start at game 7 because that was the first indication that we had turned the corner from a horrible period of disarray where we played 5/6 different FBs in 6 games, had Khumalo playing, lost Long, had the Wembley hangover, blooded 3 new players, had Griffin break down twice, lost Harte, had Elwood horribly off form etc etc etc

I have said virtually every time I've posted last 12, last 13, last 14, ever-increasing that this is THE MOST REALIST APPRAISAL of the squad/team's worth, BECAUSE the first six games don't remotely reflect what kind of team we have. And every time I have said that it will go 20-21-22-23-24 etc all the way to 40

How many times do I have to say exactly the same thing?

The statement is an opinion, current form is a shorter set of games than keep adding one at a time.

Sorry I have not kept up to your thread fully, I would guess others will ask again the same question as the season progresses.

[winchester_royal]

Quite.

And lolz at coming onto an internet forum if you don't want to debate your ideas with people who disagree with you.

The problem is that you are trying to disagree with fact as well as opinion. It is all well and good to debate opinion but when someone is simply stating a fact you really are on thin ice. It helps if people can spot the difference.

Ermm, show me where I've been disagreeing with fact please.

[kitson the god]

I understand what SB is trying to say and he is welcome to his opinion. However I have decided (probably the same as BMc) that I will wait until the end of the season to decide our strength and promotion credentials. If we are in the autos or playoffs we were strong enough. If we are not then we weren't! Simple

[sandman]

I understand what SB is trying to say and he is welcome to his opinion. However I have decided (probably the same as BMc) that I will wait until the end of the season to decide our strength and promotion credentials. If we are in the autos or playoffs we were strong enough. If we are not then we weren't! Simple

Well that's not good enough. You have to pick a side and vehemently defend it until the bitter end. What the hell are you thinking coming on here with that attitude?

[Snowball]

The statement is an opinion, current form is a shorter set of games than keep adding one at a time.

Sorry I have not kept up to your thread fully, I would guess others will ask again the same question as the season progresses.

Except i haven't been CALLING IT current form.

I have simply been calling it

"The League Table since September 17th"


Let me re-iterate.

I KNOW there is a measure of "Last 6 Games"
I KNOW there is a measure of "Last 8 Games"
I KNOW there is a measure of "Last 9 Games"

etc

I KNOW there is a measure called "The Table" and that the team at the top after 46 games is called the champions.


I ALSO know that our form over the first 6 games, with 5 or 6 different fullbacks, with Khumalo, losing Long etc is not representative of the team, not even remotely.


Therefore, IN ORDER TO REALISITCALLY JUDGE WHAT KIND OF SIDE WE ARE
I have discounted the first six games. After twelve games that meant latest 6,
after 15, 9, after 18, 12. And now it's 22 games.

it is not "Current Form" it's Form since September 17th.


Just like we say

"Form since McDermott became Manager"

or

"Form since we signed player X"

So, for example, there is clearly another table crying out to be assessed, the one
which looks at RFC since the signings of Roberts/CYWKA etc and the re-signing of Kebe

[Snowball]

Quite.

And lolz at coming onto an internet forum if you don't want to debate your ideas with people who disagree with you.

The problem is that you are trying to disagree with fact as well as opinion. It is all well and good to debate opinion but when someone is simply stating a fact you really are on thin ice. It helps if people can spot the difference.

The reason I get pissed off is the generalised view that I'm duplicitous, that I deliberately
wish to distort the truth of Reading's form, worth, ability etc.

I consider it TOTALLY, utterly reasonable to say something like

"We've lost Matt Mills and are going to have to find a new defensive set-up.
We are going to lose Shane Long and will have to find a new forward pairing and a different way of playing.
That will take at least six games, maybe ten, maybe twelve."

That is normal, rational. When we lost Gylfi, McDermott said that precisely, that it would take
5-6 games or more to work out a new way of playing.

And at the time I posted to show how he turned it round exactly when he said he would.

A rabid clown must have known that we would start badly this year and we could have been a LOT worse off.

I believe personally that had we lost 2-0 or 3-0 at Bristol we probably would now be in the bottom 4. We were
simply terrible and how we got back to win God knows.

You only have to look at the graph of RFC's league position to see the change in our performances


What amuses me about this list is the attacks on my stats are so predictable and from the usual suspects.

Comonurz was VEHEMENTLY anti my support of Shane Long

Which one of us turned out to be right?

I was ridiculed for saying we would make the POs last season. We made the POs.

I posted last season that Shane was a fantastic E-W bet for top scorer at 25-1

I won a tidy packet. Right again.

At the time I posted I said I didn''t think he could make the top spot. Right again.


I believe stats are more predictable than emotions. I use stats to overcome my sentiments.



For example, there was a time when I thought Church was going to be special, not because of my gut/subjective view
but because he got 12 championship goals at around a goal every 180 minutes. I've NEVER seen him as an exciting
player or brave, but he was getting the goals.

This season I have not been a fan but the manager and one on here (Vision?) has said he's useful.

So, SURPRISE when I discover he has been a starter in ten of our thirteen wins, and scored two as a sub in the eleventh win.


That's a perfect example of stats strongly suggesting my eyeballs are WRONG, that my subjective opinion is wrong

I still can't get myself to say he should be starting (esp as we now have Roberts) but we win when he starts
so maybe the running a lot and tiring defences actually may be true

[Snowball]

I understand what SB is trying to say and he is welcome to his opinion. However I have decided (probably the same as BMc) that I will wait until the end of the season to decide our strength and promotion credentials. If we are in the autos or playoffs we were strong enough. If we are not then we weren't! Simple

Of course. That isn't my point.

My point is (excluding new signings) that trying to work out how many points we
are going to get should NOT be based on the last 28 games, but should be based on the last 22


Does anyone want to bet me that we will be nearer MY prediition (based on the last 22 games)
than on those who say the last 28 are more valid?


I say we will be 78 or above. (The new boys should make that even more likely.)

Statto says we'll finish on 73

Sporting Index says 72 points (that's our ppg for the last 28 games.

I will take on all comers at even money that my 78 will be nearer than their 72

So Winchester, Cmonurz...

The current table predicts 72. I predict 78+ (I think 80+)

[themadstad]

Just to add some flavour if we win our game in hand but so do Birmingham and Hull then we still will be outside the play offs unless there's a swing in GD.

[winchester_royal]

Stop waving your dick about Snowball

[themadstad]

Out of interest Snowball why do you think we would finish 80+? Particularily with games we have remaining too. Aside from the way the last 22 games have panned out. Is this the new players, do you think they'll actually add that much? What about the added expectation on the team?

I just have my reservations about the ability of this team to keep it up for another 18 games and add some.

[Snowball]

Out of interest Snowball why do you think we would finish 80+? Particularily with games we have remaining too. Aside from the way the last 22 games have panned out. Is this the new players, do you think they'll actually add that much? What about the added expectation on the team?

I just have my reservations about the ability of this team to keep it up for another 18 games and add some.

I have GREAT reservations about the pre-Roberts team.

I think, OFTEN, that we are a low mid-table side

REALLY, I do. I think of the great players at Saints, Cardiff, West Ham, Blackpool, Birmingham
and I'm filled with envy. I think of the lovely football Brighton have played. I think of Leeds at their best,
even Donny on a good day. I think of how good Palace can be

I OFTEN think we are 4-8 places too high. I've posted on here that we would concede 3 or 4 and then we did at Cardiff

But the stats don't lie. We keep winning.


Why do I think we'll get 80+?

We are on 45. Our last 11 games we have got 24 points. How reasonable is it to expect the same for the next 11 games?

Quite reasonable, IMO, especially as we have a few easier games and Roberts, a re-signed Kebe, great vibes and the money to bring in loaness

If we managed that we'd be on 69 points with 7 games to play and 11 from 7 ought to be easy.

I don't mean specifically that I think we WILL do it that way, but if we beat Coventry well we'll be on 48 from 29 and will need 32 from 17
and that is FEWER points per game than we've been getting over the last 13 games.

And of course, a couple more wins and we will REAALY be flying, there'll be incentive to get 1 or 2 more loanees in.



I'm aware we might screw up against Coventry and it can go pear-shaped quickly, lose at derby, lose at home to Burnley
(that's why I wished we'd've played and won at DWWonny and could be going to Derby with WWW in our pocket


But the real point is I think 78+ not 72 like the bookies say

[Victor Meldrew]

Snowball,
All of those postings to say that our recent form has been quite good.
If we maintain that form we will do what we did last year and make the play-off lottery.
If we don't,we won't.
As Brian always says "We are just preparing for the next game".

[cmonurz]

How difficult is it to understand the premise of my question - not that 22 games is necessarily unsuitable by which to judge our performance but that it's justification becomes unsuitable when you compare us to other sides over that same run, since it can only be fair to apply the same criteria to their respective seasons - when their team was settled, stopped losing players, didn't have loads of injuries etc.

We had a dodgy 6 games at the start of the season - the likelihood is every other team in that 22-game form table has had a dodgy 6 games or so, difference is many of them will have had it in the middle of our 22-game 'run'.

So our figures don't include our bad patch, and theirs do. Which is fundamentally flawed.

Curious

Would you say this was a bad patch?

2-2
1-1
0-0
0-1
1-0
1-2

W1 D3 L2 5-6

Bad Patch, yes? 6 points from 6 games


That happened IN THIS 22 GAME RUN


H 2-2 DERBY
H 1-1 Southampton
A 0-0 Crystal Palace
A 0-1 Nottm Forest
H 1-0 Birmingham
H 1-2 Cardiff


Next bleat?

Until you answer the question in my post, there isn't one. But you are flatly refusing to address it.

[Snowball]

cumonurz, when my dog barks, I usually ignore him.

[Snowball]

assist for Roberts for winning the pen as well?

The first time a player gets an assist for passing to himself

[cmonurz]

As I've already highlighted, utter contempt for anyone who disagrees with you.

Scan through your posts - the vast majority that are polite are in response to those who support your view. Utterly pathetic, and of course refusing to address my point totally undermines your position.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I think what cmonurz is trying to say, which is a valid point, is that if it’s fair enough to eliminate our ‘bad patch’ of 6 games, in order to compare us to other sides, It’s only really legitimate if you also apply a ‘bad patch’ elimination for all the teams you are comparing us against.

I appreciate the justification for our ‘bad patch’ (we were in a process of rebuilding) but I’m sure other ‘bad patches’ for other teams could equally be justified; suspensions, injuries etc etc.

Whichever way you look at it, your stats are at the very least biased in our favour by the selection criteria.

[cmonurz]

I think what cmonurz is trying to say, which is a valid point, is that if it’s fair enough to eliminate our ‘bad patch’ of 6 games, in order to compare us to other sides, It’s only really legitimate if you also apply a ‘bad patch’ elimination for all the teams you are comparing us against.

I appreciate the justification for our ‘bad patch’ (we were in a process of rebuilding) but I’m sure other ‘bad patches’ for other teams could equally be justified; suspensions, injuries etc etc.

Whichever way you look at it, your stats are at the very least biased in our favour by the selection criteria.

That is exactly what I have been saying.

[Snowball]

I think what cmonurz is trying to say, which is a valid point, is that if it’s fair enough to eliminate our ‘bad patch’ of 6 games, in order to compare us to other sides, It’s only really legitimate if you also apply a ‘bad patch’ elimination for all the teams you are comparing us against.

I appreciate the justification for our ‘bad patch’ (we were in a process of rebuilding) but I’m sure other ‘bad patches’ for other teams could equally be justified; suspensions, injuries etc etc.

FAIR ENOUGH, EP, but I think there is a huge difference between eliminating
an OPENING six games (when, for example) a side is new/being rebuilt and
saying, "Oh Team X had a bad patch in the middle, so we'll jut drop it."

And again (I have no idea why this point keeps being ignored)
I KNOW that it's the whole 28/29 games that matters,
and I KNOW that ultimately it's the 46 games that matter

BUT I AM TRYING TO SHOW THAT OUR 28-GAME FORM IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR TRUE WORTH

I posted the URL for our league position and it's STARTLING

Whichever way you look at it, your stats are at the very least biased in our favour by the selection criteria.

When somebody ACTUALLY CHECKS the actual results (as I have done) the bias is trivial.

Here are the worst runs for all clubs in the last 22 games. The range is a mere 3 points!

One club (Blackpool) had it's worst run IN the first six games, so they had the same"bonus" as Reading

Worse run after opening six games 5 Points from 6 Games Saints
Worse run after opening six games 5 Points from 6 Games Birmingham

Worse run after opening six games 6 Points from 6 Games Hull

Worse run after opening six games 7 Points from 6 Games Reading DWDDDL
Worse run after opening six games 7 Points from 6 Games Middlesboro
Worse run after opening six games 7 Points from 6 Games Blackpool
Worse run after opening six games 7 Points from 6 Games West Ham

Worse run after opening six games 8 Points from 6 Games Cardiff

So as you can see, WITHIN THIS 22 GAMES, one club's worst-run garnered more points than us,
3 other clubs garnered exactly the same as us, 1 a single point less, and two 2 points less
That is hardly "extreme bias" is it?

[Snowball]

I think what cmonurz is trying to say, which is a valid point, is that if it’s fair enough to eliminate our ‘bad patch’ of 6 games, in order to compare us to other sides, It’s only really legitimate if you also apply a ‘bad patch’ elimination for all the teams you are comparing us against. I appreciate the justification for our ‘bad patch’ (we were in a process of rebuilding) but I’m sure other ‘bad patches’ for other teams could equally be justified; suspensions, injuries etc etc. Whichever way you look at it, your stats are at the very least biased in our favour by the selection criteria.

Here are the top few's graphs. Apart from Hull (similar to us) they are all pretty steady in terms of their league position.

West Ham

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/west-ham-united

West Ham lost their opener 0-1 to Cardiff, but their first 6 games were LWWDWW (13 Points from Games 1-6)
and they were in the POs in game 3, dropped to 7th for one game and have been in the POs ever since, 2nd or 1st



Southampton

Have never been out of the top two!!

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/so ... /2011-2012

WWWWLWWWDLWDWDWWWWLW LDDW LL WWLDDD (15 Points from Games 1-6)
(Worse run 5 points from 6, another 8 from 6.12 games a bit too much to "drop"?)
This run, over a quarter of a season is 13 points from their last 12 games.

Cardiff City

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/ca ... /2011-2012

Have been there or thereabouts throughout

WWLDDWDWDW LDLWWD WWWDWWWDLDWWDWDL (11 Points from first 6 Games) (Worse run 8 from 6)


Birmingham

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/bi ... /2011-2012 (7 Points from Games 1-6)(Worse run 5 points from 6)

LWLDWL DWW WWD LDWDLL WLDWDWWWWD

Blackpool

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/bl ... /2011-2012

WWLDDWDL DWLWLL WWDDLWDDWLWDWWW


Middlesborough

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/mi ... /2011-2012

(Worst Run 7 Points from 6 Games) (11 Points from First 6 Games)


Hull City

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/hu ... /2011-2012 (9 Points from first 6 Games)

(Worst run 6 from 6)