The Snowball stat thread

[cmonurz]

On the stats you quote above, they aren't quite right.

Cardiff's worst run is 6 points from the 6 games from 17th Sep, not 8 points.

And Middlesbrough's worst run is the 3 points they have taken from their last 6 games, not the 7 points that you quote.

The impact of removing these 'worst' runs, in terms of ppg over the remaining 22 fixtures on each team's record, illustrates my point perfectly.

Suddenly the '22-game table' looks like this, far different to the 'form table' you have had us topping, or 2nd, for the last few weeks.

(Played, Pts, PPG)

West Ham 23 49 2.13
Southampton 23 47 2.04
Birmingham 22 42 1.91
Middlesbrough 23 44 1.91
Cardiff 23 44 1.91
Reading 22 41 1.86
Blackpool 23 41 1.78
Hull 22 40 1.82

Eliminate a team's 'bad run', and of course their record looks better, and more pertinently, better compared to everyone else.

[chilipepper91]

On the stats you quote above, they aren't quite right.

Cardiff's worst run is 6 points from the 6 games from 17th Sep, not 8 points.

And Middlesbrough's worst run is the 3 points they have taken from their last 6 games, not the 7 points that you quote.

The impact of removing these 'worst' runs, in terms of ppg over the remaining 22 fixtures on each team's record, illustrates my point perfectly.

Suddenly the '22-game table' looks like this, far different to the 'form table' you have had us topping, or 2nd, for the last few weeks.

(Played, Pts, PPG)

West Ham 23 49 2.13
Southampton 23 47 2.04
Birmingham 22 42 1.91
Middlesbrough 23 44 1.91
Cardiff 23 44 1.91
Reading 22 41 1.86
Blackpool 23 41 1.78
Hull 22 40 1.82

Eliminate a team's 'bad run', and of course their record looks better, and more pertinently, better compared to everyone else.

Whoah. KO.

[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.

That is exactly what I have been saying.

And it turns out you are wrong.

Looking at the opening six games AND the worst 6-games since

Reading were worst off, so if you remove the first six and worst six

1 16 Games 35 Points = 2.19 ppg Birmingham
2 17 Games 37 Points = 2.18 ppg Southampton
3 16 Games 34 Points = 2.13 ppg Reading (If we had won at Donny we'd be joint second, 0.01 ppg off top)
4 17 Games 36 Points = 2.12 ppg West Ham

5 16 Games 31 Points = 1.94 ppg Hull
6 17 Games 31 Points = 1.82 ppg Cardiff
7 17 Games 30 Points = 1.76 ppg Blackpool
8 17 Games 29 Points = 1.71 ppg Middlesbrough



20 Points = First 6 Games 13+7 Worse 6 Games Since West Ham
19 Points = First 6 Games 11+8 Worse 6 Games Since Cardiff
18 Points = First 6 Games 11+7 Worse 6 Games Since Middlesboro
18 Points = First 6 Games 11+7 Worse 6 Games Since Blackpool
15 Points = First 6 Games 15+5 Worse 6 Games Since Saints
15 Points = First 6 Games 09+6 Worse 6 Games Since Hull
12 Points = First 6 Games 07+5 Worse 6 Games Since Birmingham
11 Points = First 6 Games 04+7 Worse 6 Games Since Reading


Blackpool's worst-ever run is LDDWDL (6 POINTS)
BUT FOUR OF THOSE GAMES IN THE FIRST SIX GAMES!


So there is the TINIEST "bias" (worst case 2 points) by not using a sticky 6-Game patch since

But if you DO use the first 6 and the worst 6 since it makes RFC look pretty good!

I'll see what happens if you simply remove any club's worst run of six games

[Snowball]

This is the table (as argued by cumonurz, giving a 6-game grace to other clubs)

I think it's utterly bizarre to search for every club's worst 6 game run and remove it
but if you did do this, this is the table



1 23-49 = 2.13 ppg West Ham
2 23-47 = 2.03 ppg Southampton
3 22-42 = 1.91 ppg Birmingham
4 22-41 = 1.86 ppg Reading (Had we won at Donny we'd be third (1.93 ppg)
5 23-42 = 1.83 ppg Cardiff City
6 22-40 = 1.82 ppg Hull
7 23-41 = 1.78 ppg Blackpool
8 23-40 = 1.74 ppg Middlesbrough

[Snowball]

1 23-49 = 2.13 ppg West Ham
2 23-47 = 2.03 ppg Southampton
3 22-42 = 1.91 ppg Birmingham
4 22-41 = 1.86 ppg Reading (Had we won at Donny we'd be third (1.93 ppg)
5 23-42 = 1.83 ppg Cardiff City Actually 1.91, same as Birmingham
6 22-40 = 1.82 ppg Hull
7 23-41 = 1.78 ppg Blackpool
8 23-40 = 1.74 ppg Middlesbrough [/quote]


Oh dear I got Cardiff wrong






A 1-1 Blackpool
H 0-0 Leicester
H 2-1 Southampton
A 1-2 Hull
H 2-2 Ipswich
A 3-4 Peterborough

[Snowball]

Boro was the last one I did and I included FA Cup in error

However, I say again, there is a MASSIVE difference between searching through
a 29-Game run and removing a six game run (whichever 6-Games are the worst)
and removing the FIRST six games

First six is about building a side and it shows the LATEST 22 Games, so is a valid statistic.

If, OTOH, you don't set REASONS beforehand, merely trawl looking for defeats and draws
that is the worst possible way to analyse.

It's not unreasonable to do what I did (and two other top eight clubs had poor starts)
or it might be reasonable to say X Club bought A and B players (eg in the transfer window)

But what you are talking about is the dirtiest possible, dodgiest statting.

It is a circular argument to say "Removing Reading's bad start makes them look better"

That was the POINT of removing their first six. BECAUSE the first six team-wise was a total mess.

The difference is that RFC's 22 game form is UNBROKEN. It's ALL the games since September 17th.

That is the team's stretched out "current form"... but to arbitrarily remove 1-6 from one club
4-9 from another, 7-12 from another is utterly ridiculous

[Bandini]

It's not necessarily picking the 6 worst games.

Other clubs might have different periods in which they have some upheaval and which therefore might need to be treated differently in order to work out that team's current form. We're in a good position to pinpoint Reading's period of upheaval; we are in a less good position to work out the equivalent periods for other clubs, so we can't reasonably compare our specialist knowledge of Reading with the more general knowledge we would have of the other clubs.

[cmonurz]

I don’t know whether to be honoured or alarmed that I provided the analysis that illustrates my valid point, Snowball ignored it, did it again (wrongly), then corrected it, and then refused to accept its validity again.

I’ll go with honoured.

[Maguire]

You've had a good one, cmonurz, i'll give you that.

[Platypuss]

It is a circular argument to say "Removing Reading's bad start makes them look better"

That was the POINT of removing their first six. BECAUSE the first six team-wise was a total mess.

The difference is that RFC's 22 game form is UNBROKEN. It's ALL the games since September 17th.

That is the team's stretched out "current form"... but to arbitrarily remove 1-6 from one club
4-9 from another, 7-12 from another is utterly ridiculous

I think you could be displaying your lack of understanding as to what the word arbitrary means.

Most disappointing for a Pulitzer-winning author like yourself.

[rfc2001]

Who cares about statistics.


This season we are now

Stronger and better
Have a deeper squad
In a better league position
And I don't believe we have hit top form yet.


If we start scoring in the first half we will become unbeatable

[JC]

Vindication for Snowball

http://www.readingfc.co.uk/page/NewsDet ... 90,00.html


Speaking before the postponement of the Doncaster game, Royals boss Brian McDermott declared himself happy with the team's form.

He said, "In the last 22 games we're top of the table, so let's forget the first six and think about the last 22!

[Wycombe Royal]

Yes but at least McD is taking it for what it is - a stat in isolation and not making any assumptions from it or analysing it to the nth degree. If Snowball had just made a simple statement like that he would not have been roundly criticised for it. Unfortuntely for him he can't just make simple statements like that.

[Extended-Phenotype]

What you are missing Snowy, is that it's not about removing a random 6 game bad patch, it's about fairly identifying other teams period of disorder which is contrary to thier natural form, and judging them in the same manner as you have Reading.

Otherwise it's merely handpicking a form table which shows Reading in the best light.

What is the scientific basis for a team needing 6 games to rebuild a side? What is the indicator which triggers the start of the analysis?

Points?

[LUX]

He said, "In the last 22 games we're top of the table, so let's forget the first six and think about the last 22!

well, if we play four matches more than the others, we've got a good chance.

[RoyalJames101]

What's the point of taking our bad run out of this? It will be the same for any team. Going through a bad run is part of football, it happens to everyone over a season. Most of our bad results came at the start of the season, where as some other teams have had theirs spread out over the season, so technically they haven't had a bad 'run' as such.

Its just the way football works.

[RoyalJames101]

Oh and what difference does it make to the final table? None, none at all.

[Wiggypop]

This is one crazy thread! Snowball?! Nutball would be more accurate

[Snowball]

What's the point of taking our bad run out of this? It will be the same for any team. Going through a bad run is part of football, it happens to everyone over a season. Most of our bad results came at the start of the season, where as some other teams have had theirs spread out over the season, so technically they haven't had a bad 'run' as such.

.

Dear sweet Jesus.

[Snowball]

We won't lose our next two games.

Quoted for possible future emphasis.

and I was right