The Snowball stat thread

[Snowball]

Bizarre!!


West ham lose at home 0-1 to Cardiff first game of the season

We beat West Ham 7-2 (3-0 and 4-2)

Cardiff beat us 5-2 (2-1 at our place, 3-1 down there)




then hammer them


2-0 Away
2-0 Away
3-0 Home

[Snowball]

Final ACTIM Ratings

08 626 Adam Federici
10 617 Alex Pearce
24 544 Ian Harte
33 517 Kaspars Gorks
34 517 Jobi McAnuff
42 502 Noel Hunt
50 488 Mikele Leigertwood
57 478 Jimmy Kebe
70 449 Jem Karacan
72 447 Shaun Cummings

40 Average Position for these ten.

[SydenhamRoyal]

Ahem. 86 was 3rd. If a team had got 77, they would have been 4th. If the team who came 4th had got 85 - they would still have been 4th.

Understand where you are coming from, Syd.

I think its just you that does. Not quite sure how I feel about that

[Snowball]

Ahem. 86 was 3rd. If a team had got 77, they would have been 4th. If the team who came 4th had got 85 - they would still have been 4th.

Understand where you are coming from, Syd.

I think its just you that does. Not quite sure how I feel about that

Try it another way, then.

It happens that West Ham got 86 and came 3rd.

For any other side to beat them to third would have required 87 or 86 with a better GD

It's all very well to say, "The side in 4th place (Birmingham) only got 76 points and THEREFORE 77 points would have been enough"

BUT THAT IS INCORRECT.


Because, had West Ham United dropped 9 points, other sides would have gained those points. Also WHU would have had
a much poorer GD. Say 2 of those dropped points were for the draws versus Birminhgham. Now Birmingham have a GD
improved by 2 and 4 more points so are up to 80

And say the other six points dropped were those won against Blackpool (8-1). Blackpool jump to 81 points and their GD improves by 9 to 29

WHU (dropping just 8 points)

3 81 Points GD +29 Blackpool
4 80 Points GD +29 Birmingham
5 78 Points GD +22 West Ham

The point is, of course WHU could have dropped points against lowly clubs,
but you can't after-the-fact, say that 77 would have been enough. It depends
on which points from their 86 WHU "failed to get".

[Platypuss]

If you are running a race and overtake the person in 4th, that doesn't then make you 3rd.

[SydenhamRoyal]

If you are running a race and overtake the person in 4th, that doesn't then make you 3rd.

And if the person in 4th in that race closes the gap to (plucking a figure completely a random) 1 point, so that they are on 85 and the person on 3rd is on 86, you could say hey look 85 still wasn't enough for 3rd.

I think.

However, its fair to say that I have given up the will to live, and wondering how random silliness can last until August 18th when we have something important to talk about again

[Extended-Phenotype]

Popped into the Snowball dungeon to say hello to the inmate and ask Statto a riddle that interests me…

In your close examination of games, can you tell me how many points that one could say Harte ‘lost’ Reading this season, and how many points you could argue Harte ‘won’?

I.e. a costly mistake leading to a goal in which Reading lost or drew the game VS a goal Harte scored or setup that lead to Reading winning or drawing.

I just thought it would be interesting to appreciate in ballpark terms whether we gain more from Harte’s skill than we lose from his pace.

My pre-conceived notion is we gain more than we lose.

[Wimb]

Popped into the Snowball dungeon to say hello to the inmate and ask Statto a riddle that interests me…

In your close examination of games, can you tell me how many points that one could say Harte ‘lost’ Reading this season, and how many points you could argue Harte ‘won’?

I.e. a costly mistake leading to a goal in which Reading lost or drew the game VS a goal Harte scored or setup that lead to Reading winning or drawing.

I just thought it would be interesting to appreciate in ballpark terms whether we gain more from Harte’s skill than we lose from his pace.

My pre-conceived notion is we gain more than we lose.

I can't remember too many Harte 'errors' the only ones that come to mind are failing to close down the guy at Hull and also being hilariously outpaced at Peterborough.

[Snowball]

In your close examination of games, can you tell me how many points that one could say Harte ‘lost’ Reading this season, and how many points you could argue Harte ‘won’?
I.e. a costly mistake leading to a goal in which Reading lost or drew the game VS a goal Harte scored or setup that lead to Reading winning or drawing.
I just thought it would be interesting to appreciate in ballpark terms whether we gain more from Harte’s skill than we lose from his pace.
My pre-conceived notion is we gain more than we lose.

THIS season. In terms of direct goals and assists. He has done very well offensively

2,693 Minutes 15 Major Contributions one every 180 Minutes 04 Goals 11 Assists HARTE


Defensively, despite what we might say or think, the team hasn't done so well

BUT we have (it appears) done better in terms of points-per-game.

However, it should be noted that the Roberts effect favours whoever played left-back (Harte)



Cummings (1) and Griffin (3) Didn't concede a goal!!

But (I was surprised by this) MILLS had a better clean-sheet percentage.



Left Back - Defensively

P01 W01 D00 L00 01-00 0.00 Goals per Game 100% Clean Sheets Cummings
P03 W03 D00 L00 05-00 0.00 Goals per Game 100% Clean Sheets Griffin
P12 W04 D05 L03 12-11 0.92 Goals per Game 042% Clean Sheets Mills
P30 W19 D03 L08 51-31 1.03 Goals per Game 037% Clean Sheets Harte


P16 W08 D05 L03 18-11 0.69 Goals per Game 056% Clean Sheets Cummings+Griffin+Mills Combined
P30 W19 D03 L08 51-31 1.03 Goals per Game 037% Clean Sheets Harte

Left Back Offensively

03 Points from 01 Games, 01-00 = 3.00 ppg Cummings
09 Points from 03 Games, 05-00 = 3.00 ppg Griffin
17 Points from 12 Games, 12-11 = 1.42 ppg Mills
60 Points from 30 Games, 51-31 = 2.00 ppg Harte

29 Points from 16 Games, 18-11 = 1.82 ppg Cummings+Griffin+Mills Combined
60 Points from 30 Games, 51-31 = 2.00 ppg Harte

[Snowball]

Popped into the Snowball dungeon to say hello to the inmate and ask Statto a riddle that interests me…

In your close examination of games, can you tell me how many points that one could say Harte ‘lost’ Reading this season, and how many points you could argue Harte ‘won’?

I.e. a costly mistake leading to a goal in which Reading lost or drew the game VS a goal Harte scored or setup that lead to Reading winning or drawing.

I just thought it would be interesting to appreciate in ballpark terms whether we gain more from Harte’s skill than we lose from his pace.

My pre-conceived notion is we gain more than we lose.

I can't remember too many Harte 'errors' the only ones that come to mind are failing to close down the guy at Hull and also being hilariously outpaced at Peterborough.

We let in a lot more goals when he plays

[Snowball]

I was frankly taken aback by the poor stats for Harte
and thought I'd look at how we fared once the side was settle
(ie after Gorks came in and Khumalo was dropped)


Defensively, when Harte plays we concede a lot more goals per game
and get a lower percentage of clean sheets, but (including the Roberts games)
we seem to get a lot more points.

Personally I suspect it's Roberts coming in that skews the stats in Harte's favour.



Left Back Stats Excluding Games 1-6




Left Back - Defensively

P01 W01 D00 L00 01-00 0.00 Goals per Game 100% Clean Sheets Cummings
P03 W03 D00 L00 05-00 0.00 Goals per Game 100% Clean Sheets Griffin
P11 W04 D05 L02 12-09 0.82 Goals per Game 045% Clean Sheets Mills
P25 W18 D02 L05 48-25 1.00 Goals per Game 040% Clean Sheets Harte


P15 W08 D05 L02 18-09 0.60 Goals per Game 060% Clean Sheets Cummings+Griffin+Mills Combined
P25 W18 D03 L08 48-25 1.00 Goals per Game 040% Clean Sheets Harte

Left Back Offensively

03 Points from 01 Games, 01-00 = 3.00 ppg Cummings
09 Points from 03 Games, 05-00 = 3.00 ppg Griffin
17 Points from 11 Games, 12-11 = 1.55 ppg Mills
57 Points from 25 Games, 48-25 = 2.28 ppg Harte

29 Points from 15 Games, 18-11 = 1.93 ppg Cummings+Griffin+Mills Combined
57 Points from 25 Games, 48-25 = 2.28 ppg Harte

[Snowball]

Take Roberts out of the Picture
and compare Harte & Mills

Harte concedes .41 goals per game more than MILLS (61 per Season v 42)

Mills had 5 times as many clean sheets!!!

And we got more points per game with Mills playing!




P12 W5 - D1 - L6 17-16 16 Points @ 1.33 ppg Conceding 1.33 Goals per Game 1 Clean Sheets ( 008% ) Harte
P12 W4 - D5 - L3 12-11 17 Points @ 1.42 ppg Conceding 0.92 Goals per Game 5 Clean Sheets ( 042% ) Mills

2-2 Millwall
2-0 Leicester
0-1 Portsmouth
1-2 Barnsely
0-1 Hull
3-2 Ipswich
3-2 Peterboro
0-1 Blackpool
3-0 West Ham
1-3 Cardiff
2-1 Watford
0-1 Hull

[Snowball]

Excluding the First 6 Games,
and removing the Roberts Effect



Harte played Games 1-5 and Mills played Game 6



P07 W4 - D0 - L3 12-10 12 Points @ 1.71 ppg Conceding 1.33 Goals per Game 0 Clean Sheets ( 00% ) Harte
P11 W4 - D5 - L2 12-09 17 Points @ 1.55 ppg Conceding 0.82 Goals per Game 5 Clean Sheets ( 45% ) Mills

[Snowball]

Looking at the stats I have to say that Harte, despite our usual arguments
doesn't stack up that well.

Without Roberts


Cummings and Griffin had a perfect record (4 Games, no goals conceded, maximum points)

MILLS conceded 1 less goal in 4 more games and had 45% Clean Sheets.



Even when we ignore the first 6 games "shambles"

Harte, when Roberts wasn't here was 4-0-3 and conceding 1.33 goals per game.




Based on that, if the stats are right, much as I love the bloke,
I have to say he will be ripped to shreds in the Premiership

[Wimb]

Popped into the Snowball dungeon to say hello to the inmate and ask Statto a riddle that interests me…

In your close examination of games, can you tell me how many points that one could say Harte ‘lost’ Reading this season, and how many points you could argue Harte ‘won’?

I.e. a costly mistake leading to a goal in which Reading lost or drew the game VS a goal Harte scored or setup that lead to Reading winning or drawing.

I just thought it would be interesting to appreciate in ballpark terms whether we gain more from Harte’s skill than we lose from his pace.

My pre-conceived notion is we gain more than we lose.

I can't remember too many Harte 'errors' the only ones that come to mind are failing to close down the guy at Hull and also being hilariously outpaced at Peterborough.

We let in a lot more goals when he plays

Appreciate that but he was asking about direct failings that led to a goal and those were ones I could remember!

[winchester_royal]

I was frankly taken aback by the poor stats for Harte
and thought I'd look at how we fared once the side was settle
(ie after Gorks came in and Khumalo was dropped)


Defensively, when Harte plays we concede a lot more goals per game
and get a lower percentage of clean sheets, but (including the Roberts games)
we seem to get a lot more points.

Personally I suspect it's Roberts coming in that skews the stats in Harte's favour.



Left Back Stats Excluding Games 1-6




Left Back - Defensively

P01 W01 D00 L00 01-00 0.00 Goals per Game 100% Clean Sheets Cummings
P03 W03 D00 L00 05-00 0.00 Goals per Game 100% Clean Sheets Griffin
P11 W04 D05 L02 12-09 0.82 Goals per Game 045% Clean Sheets Mills
P25 W18 D02 L05 48-25 1.00 Goals per Game 040% Clean Sheets Harte


P15 W08 D05 L02 18-09 0.60 Goals per Game 060% Clean Sheets Cummings+Griffin+Mills Combined
P25 W18 D03 L08 48-25 1.00 Goals per Game 040% Clean Sheets Harte

Left Back Offensively

03 Points from 01 Games, 01-00 = 3.00 ppg Cummings
09 Points from 03 Games, 05-00 = 3.00 ppg Griffin
17 Points from 11 Games, 12-11 = 1.55 ppg Mills
57 Points from 25 Games, 48-25 = 2.28 ppg Harte

29 Points from 15 Games, 18-11 = 1.93 ppg Cummings+Griffin+Mills Combined
57 Points from 25 Games, 48-25 = 2.28 ppg Harte

Woah, hold on Snowball.

Why are you using goals conceded as the measure for defensive qualities, and ppg for offensive qualities?

Surely to be consistent it should be goals scored per game instead?

[Extended-Phenotype]

Appreciate the effort Snowy, but you are using stats which are far too vague to place responsibility on an individual.

Like Wimb said; I’m enquiring about direct failings and direct contributions, not ambiguous and extraneous team stats.

Harte, having played more games, is more likely to have been playing in a team which would suffer fatigue, differing opponent form, differing opponent quality, differing Reading form, differing Reading line-ups, as well as making himself more statistically likely to be present for mistakes, blips, errors and random factors.

It’s also clear the stats are bollocks by the fact that (a) it makes Cummings or Griffin our best LB, and (b) it makes Mills look good.

Mills is dog spunkingly awful and I'd rather have the Guildford Four's lawyer in defence.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Out of interest what is out points per game ratio when a) it rains for most of the game, b) it's not raining, c) it rains for a while before the game

[cmonurz]

Out of interest what is out points per game ratio when a) it rains for most of the game, b) it's not raining, c) it rains for a while before the game

What, so you just rule out the impact of a late second half downpour like it doesn't matter?

[Ian Royal]

We've had a pretty strong defence and defensive midfield for most the season and conceeded bugger all goals, so I wouldn't expect many people to have made more than the odd mistake that directly leads to a goal.

For all Harte's quality set piece delivery, he hasn't actually scored many goals from free kicks this season, and we don't just score from corners when he takes them.

I think he's surpassed expectations and is a great squad player... but I am very nervous about going into next season if he's going to be first choice and another year older.