The Snowball stat thread

[Maguire]

How about Cummings as a trigger?

How about "A new FB pairing" as a trigger?

Full-backs on opposing sides of the pitch dont function as a "pairing" in the same way two centre-halves or two strikers do.

And you think Mills was the positive catalyst when Harte's first choice left-back and Mills hasn't played at all recently? Ok then.

[Snowball]

00 00 00 00 00 09 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Cummings<<<<<<<<
90 90 90 90 82 00 0000 00 00 00 00 00 00 Harte
90 90 72 00 79 58 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Griffin
00 00 00 00 08 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Mills<<<<<<<<<<<
00 00 00 78 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Gunnar
00 00 00 00 00 00 90 00 86 90 72 00 00 00 Tabb<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
90 90 90 90 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Khumalo
00 00 00 06 00 14 90 90 65 08 80 79 81 71 Church<<<<<<<<<<<<
22 69 67 20 18 76 00 08 04 16 10 18 09 00 Manset


Harte played in five of the poor six games
Harte did not play at all in the eight game undefeated run beginning with Doncaster

Griffin played in five of the poor six games breaking down twice (so probably playing while injured)
Griffin did not play at all in the eight game undefeated run beginning with Doncaster

Khumalo played in four of the six poor games (360 minutes)
Khumalo did not play at all in the eight game undefeated run beginning with Doncaster

Manset played in all six games (3 starts) of the poor run (272 Minutes)
Manset did not start at all in the eight game undefeated run beginning with Doncaster averaging just 8 minutes per game as a sub)

Tabb did not play at all in the six game poor run
Tabb started in 4 of the next 5 games, all unbeaten.

Church did not start in any of the six game poor run and played just 20 sub minutes.
Church started in 7 of the 8 game unbeaten run beginning with Doncaster, and was a sub in the 8th game

Cummings did not start in any of the 6 game poor run and played 9 minutes as a sunb in the sixth.
Cummings started all 8 games in the 8 game unbeaten run starting with Doncaster and played 90 minutes every game.

Mills had one start in the six game run (98 minutes)
Mills started all 8 games in the 8 game unbeaten run starting with Doncaster and played 90 minutes every game.

[Snowball]

How about Cummings as a trigger?

How about "A new FB pairing" as a trigger?

Full-backs on opposing sides of the pitch dont function as a "pairing" in the same way two centre-halves or two strikers do.

No, they don't but having a dodgy full-back puts pressure on the other three outfield defenders
and therefore having TWO decent FBs is an improvement.

Secondly, both these FBs are able to attack giving the side more options.

Third, by playing for 8 games they put pressure on Griffin and Harte to step u their game.

Harte, in particular has shown before that he occasional needs a rocket.

And you think Mills was the positive catalyst when Harte's first choice left-back and Mills hasn't played at all recently? Ok then.

Harte got back in when he had overcome any injuries and received his rocket. Same as last season.

His improvement comes from being dropped and realising he had to improve.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Hi all

When one looks at the ppg trend over the whole season so far it is clear that there is a significant improvement in ppg from game 7 onwards. If you see this on a graph (sorry, can't post image) then ppg is a practically flat line from game 1 to game 6 (1 win, 1 draw and then 4 defeats). After game 6 it really takes off and the flat line becomes an almost continuous line upwards at 45 degrees angle. Try it in excel and see for yourselves. This indicates very clearly that the first 6 games trend is significantly different from the trend for the following 29 games. It is therefore reasonable and acceptable to point out that something significant happened from game 7 onwards compared to the first 6 - this in indisputable. Now, one can then speculate why there is this significant difference and put forward theories as to why e.g. new players coming in (Gorkks for example), a more settled team (not checked this out but worth a look) etc etc. However, whatever the reason, it is clear that something has changed from game 7 onwards. This is the point that Snowball is making and is why he has excluded the first 6 games in his trend analysis. This is not an arbitrary choice but is based on a sound statistical analysis.

That's right. And because the WWII trend in Killed Or Seriously Injured leapt when America nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima, we discount all the deaths prior to August 1945. Sound statistical analysis.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Oh and don’t forget that during the Leicester game Roberts, in the minute prior to scoring his goal on Saturday, had gone 74 minutes without scoring. You will notice on a graph a significant difference in the 75 minute; in which case we can discount the 74 preceding minutes and subsequent minutes, and deduce that Roberts is currently scoring a goal ever 60 seconds.

Whataguy!

[Maguire]

How about Cummings as a trigger?

How about "A new FB pairing" as a trigger?

Full-backs on opposing sides of the pitch dont function as a "pairing" in the same way two centre-halves or two strikers do.

No, they don't but having a dodgy full-back puts pressure on the other three outfield defenders
and therefore having TWO decent FBs is an improvement

So Mills is a decent full-back and Harte is dodgy? Seems that Brian doesn't think so.

Griffin and Harte was the prefererd full-back combination for much of our success last season including the p/o semis. Seems odd you now blame it for our poor results even when one of them is still first choice.

Keep grapsing at straws though by all means.

[Snowball]

I love the way the hecklers come out in these threads.

There is a standard pattern.



Someone gets bored over in AE, pops in, tosses a few old bombs,
then an hour or two later we get the jokers.


Cue the animated gifs now.


Sadly, for more than a week, the attempt to get me to respond with insults has failed.


Mods, take note.

[Snowball]

So Mills is a decent full-back and Harte is dodgy? Seems that Brian doesn't think so.

Mills is a young, reasonable Championship FB who can improve.

Harte has always been slow, but when he is fully-committed
(and not cruising) he is BY FAR our best choice at left back.

But at the beginning of the season he was 1 or more of the following

1. Carrying a niggle.
2. Not fit enough
3. Out of Form
4. Cruising and not fully committed.


He was dropped for Mills, and that was a wake-up call.

Griffin and Harte was the prefererd full-back combination for much of our success last season including the p/o semis.
Seems odd you now blame it for our poor results even when one of them is still first choice.

Both are old. Harte will be 35 this year. Griffin is 33 this month.

Both are a year older than last season, and are 85% likely to leave this season's end.

Keep grapsing at straws though by all means.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Mods, take note.

You are lucky anybody is taking note.

[Snowball]

Easily rejected seeing as we have continued to be great with Cummings out of the side and Left Back personel have been even more changeable in that period. As have Tabb & Church being in the side.
Don't look at the data to find a theory. Find a theory and check it with data. You're doing things backwards.

I bow to your greater knowledge and vast experience of football matters.

[Snowball]

Mods, take note.

You are lucky anybody is taking note.

Your absolutely right, E-P, 89 pages and counting.

[winchester_royal]

To be fair to him, Snowball is fantastic at what he does.

Kes could learn a thing or two.

[StroudRoyal]

I've looked at Saints and West Ham's poorest 6 game sequences over the season.

The worst sequence for Saints is 5 points from 6 games (Games 4-9)

The worst sequence for West Ham is 7 points from 6 games (Games 19-24)

This compares with Reading's worst sequence of 4 points from 6 games (Games 1-6)

Going back to my previous post and comparing the sequences of games from start of season:

Reading

games 1-6 - 4 points
games 7-12 - 12 points
games 13-18 - 8 points
games 19-24 - 15 points
games 25-30 - 12 points
games 31-35 - 15 points (only 5 games)

Saints

games 1-6 - 12 points
games 7-12 - 11 points
games 13-18 - 16 points
games 19-24 - 8 points
games 25-30 - 8 points
games 31-35 - 14 points (6 games)

West Ham

games 1-6 - 13 points
games 7-12 - 8 points
games 13-18 - 16 points
games 19-24 - 7 points
games 25-30 - 13 points
games 31-35 - 9 points (Only 5 games)

So one could argue that each team has had a bad run but that the difference between each bad run is only 3 points (Reading worse but only just). Only difference being that Reading's worst run was at the beginning of season.

Interesting though that if we compare the 2 worst sequences of runs for each team we get - Reading 16 points (start of season), Saints 16 points (start of second half of season) and West Ham 20 points (start of second half of season)

But, West Ham appear to be going - good run, average run, outstanding run, average run, good run, average/good run (depending on result of their 6th game in sequence).

Reading and Saints have both had 3 good to outstanding runs in a row:

Reading bad, good, average, outstanding, good, outstanding;

Saints good,good,outstanding, average, average, outstanding).

Therefore, based on each consecutive sequence of 6 games throughout the season, Reading are the only team to have suffered a bad run. However, to make up for this Reading have achieved 2 outstanding and one good run (all over the past 15 games) compared to Saints and West Ham.

Just throwing this out there for everyone to pick over/interpret.

PS - I'm not Snowball in disguise - I have a day off and thought I'd waste it doing this!

[Extended-Phenotype]

Mods, take note.

You are lucky anybody is taking note.

Your absolutely right, E-P, 89 pages and counting.

...87 pages of which are your posts.

[StroudRoyal]

How about Cummings as a trigger?

How about "A new FB pairing" as a trigger?

Easily rejected seeing as we have continued to be great with Cummings out of the side and Left Back personel have been even more changeable in that period. As have Tabb & Church being in the side.

Don't look at the data to find a theory. Find a theory and check it with data. You're doing things backwards.

I tend to look at unusual things happening and then try to come up with a theory as to why the unusual is happening. Don't see a problem with this - if I see something which is bucking the trend I then try to work out why. Only difference is that I'm not offering a theory because when people do that on here it all gets a bit nasty for some reason. I'm just stating that there was a significant change in the statistical trend from game 6 onwards and as the evidence has built from there (i.e. more data has been gathered to support that - i.e. it's become less and less likely that it can be dismissed as a blip) it has become clear that this change has become more and more significant. Don't see why that should be a problem. I'll leave it to others to suggest why this has happened.

[cmonurz]

Stroud - somewhere in this thread I've already done an analysis where I picked out each side's worst 6 game run and eliminated it from their overall season performance - iirc it relegated Reading to 5th in the 'form table' at the time I did it. This will obviously have changed a bit now as our excellent form has been maintained.

Snowball's analysis is relevant, as are those of others, and as are the criticisms of his methods that others make.

[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.

Here it is. It was at 22 games at the time, I did this to illustrate my point that the stats were skewed as they eliminated Reading's bad run, but included the poor form of others.

[StroudRoyal]

Stroud - somewhere in this thread I've already done an analysis where I picked out each side's worst 6 game run and eliminated it from their overall season performance - iirc it relegated Reading to 5th in the 'form table' at the time I did it. This will obviously have changed a bit now as our excellent form has been maintained.

Snowball's analysis is relevant, as are those of others, and as are the criticisms of his methods that others make.

Can't disagree with any that. Knew somebody had done it - just couldn't be bothered to look for it now the threads have become combined into one.

[Blue Hooped Moose]

"Well Brian, you've hit some impressive form recently and are riding high in the table"
"Yes Tim, it's great - it's a shame we couldn't start the season in such fine form as if we had we'd be right up there in the automatic promotion spots."

Actually he has NOT said that.

he has (and so has the OS, and so has the programme)
simply said "We are top of the table over the last XX games"

...which is why I said "I'd imagine..." that was what was said - your selective quoting misses that out.

To then publish reams of figures excluding a range of dates is not what statistics are about - you paint a full picture, as unbiased as possible, and then allow people to comment on it afterwards. We all know we're doing impressively well this season and hiding the times when we weren't so good just devalues the whole thing.

That is simply WRONG.
There is an extremely sound reason for ignoring the first six games. The reasons have been given dozens of times.

To anybody that works with stats (either producing them or analysing them) painting the full picture is not WRONG, it's the way it should be. What to you is a sound reason for ignoring games, to someone else is completely unfathomable. An example of this are the constant figures and stats that are rolled out surrounding global warming, either to prove or disprove it; by being selective with the data, specifically the period you are looking at, you can paint quite a grim/rosy picture.

As for distorting a sides true value, it's quite simple - this sides true value is that we are 3rd in the table. The value you are showing is not the true one, it's distorted.

[JC]

I really cannot see the problem here. What is likely to occur in the near future is much more related to what has happened in the near past rather than the distant past. This, after all, is the whole raison d'etre behind the concept of form tables. Somebody on a good run is likely to perform better than somebody on a bad run even if the latter is higher up the table because of a good run earlier in the season. Surely the whole point of all these stats is to try to assist in predicting the likely final outcome at the end of the season, in which case current form is surely a better guide