Shane Long

[Royal Rother]

Looking at cmonurz's stats for this season's Championship, it's more like >200%.

Point One. We are Reading FC. The post above shows that different teams have extremely different stats
and the average is pretty much meaningless

The average might be meaningless (actually, it isn't but we'll let that pass) but I reckon a graph/histogram and analysis of points gained will prove that they are anything but meaningless on a team by team basis. Anyway, talking of meaningless, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by answering my quote in that way - all I was trying to do was to add some more light to the discussion. You seem to be more keen on "winning" the argument than allowing facts like mine above stand up on their own merit.

Despite enjoying a statistician's analysis of aspects of football it's pretty clear to me that the bloke himself is a bit of a jerk - I think that probably answers your point.

[Snowball]

As others have pointed out, it's fairly obvious what point I was making.

Then make it again, clearly. As far as I can see you still are talking "majority" (ie greater than 50%)

If you did not mean that what did you mean?

[Royal Rother]

As others have pointed out, it's fairly obvious what point I was making.

Then make it again, clearly. As far as I can see you still are talking "majority" (ie greater than 50%)

If you did not mean that what did you mean?

Ever the school-teacher eh? Jerk.

[Hoop Blah]

CM, this "stat" came from the (as usual) attempts to hammer Shane Long.

When I showed he was scoring well per minute played I was told that was because it was so much easier to score in the last 15 minutes.

So what could be fairer than checking that FOR READING?

It's totally clear that Reading's modus operandi, (and some other clubs) is very, very different

For example, compare Boro and Fulham, they are worlds apart.


The reason, therefore, I answer your post "that way" is that I am talking about Long/Reading and was showing (PROVING) that
the team as a whole doesn't score freely in the last fifteen, but that Long is responsible (when a sub) for a high proportion of those goals)

Perhaps we're an exception to the late goals rule BECAUSE we play Shane Long so often in the latter stages of games....

[CMRoyal]

The average might be meaningless (actually, it isn't but we'll let that pass) but I reckon a graph/histogram and analysis of points gained will prove that they are anything but meaningless on a team by team basis. Anyway, talking of meaningless, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by answering my quote in that way - all I was trying to do was to add some more light to the discussion. You seem to be more keen on "winning" the argument than allowing facts like mine above stand up on their own merit.

CM, this "stat" came from the (as usual) attempts to hammer Shane Long.

When I showed he was scoring well per minute played I was told that was because it was so much easier to score in the last 15 minutes.

So what could be fairer than checking that FOR READING?

It's totally clear that Reading's modus operandi, (and some other clubs) is very, very different

For example, compare Boro and Fulham, they are worlds apart.


The reason, therefore, I answer your post "that way" is that I am talking about Long/Reading and was showing (PROVING) that
the team as a whole doesn't score freely in the last fifteen, but that Long is responsible (when a sub) for a high proportion of those goals)

All irrelevant to the tiny bit of light I was shining on your meta-discussion about working out the proportion of goals scored in the last 13 minutes compared with the first 10. It was your comment alone to which I responded - it was nothing to do with Shane Long, Reading's approach or anything else (except inasmuch as it highlights further the difference between what you describe as a 'meaningless' average and Reading's figures, which if anything actually buttresses your argument that we are different from the norm in that respect).

I only take issue with this pedantic point because I too am becoming irritated at your tendency to take all replies personally, treating them as a challenge to your unassailable correctness.

[Snowball]

I don't think this season, for one club, should be taken as conclusive proof that a general distribution of goals to the end of the match is a myth.

TRUE, but any statement of the fact that implies it includes READING FC is wrong.

On our goal distribution, and re your last post, it's worth noting that the constraints chosen, first and last 15 minutes, provide very different results than if you use first and last 10 minutes.

Naughty-naughty. Selective Stats Alert! Why not the first 5 minutes versus the last five minutes? (Because, for some reason we dry up in that second five?

5 5 1.00 First Five Minutes = "1 goal per minute"
8 8 1.00 Last five minutes (plus 3 minutes overtime) = 1 goal per minute

5 5 1.00 My guess here is we start with a load of huff-and-puff
1 5 0.20 Then need to take a breather
6 5 1.20 Then settle into our stride

6 5 1.20
1 5 0.20
5 5 1.00

1 5 0.20
3 5 0.60
3 6 0.50

4 5 0.80
3 5 0.60
4 5 0.80

6 5 1.20
5 5 1.00
2 5 0.40

3 5 0.60
5 5 1.00
8 8 1.00 Last five minutes (plus 3 minutes overtime) = 1 goal per minute

On the hypothesis that it gets easier to score as you get to the end of a game, we have scored 6 goals in the first 10 minutes of games this season, and 13 goals in the final 10 minutes.

On the hypothesis that 5 minutes does not equal 8 minutes we have scored 5 goals in the first five minutes = 8 goals in the last 8 minutes = the same rate.

Note also that the heaviest scoring 5-minute spells are NOT at the end

The time from the 11th to the 20th minute and 61-65) are 20% MORE LIKELY to see us score than the last 10-13 minutes and SIX HUNDRED PER CENT MORE than the three worse periods

If you sort the 5-minute segments into goals-scored order it's very revealing

6 5 1.20 11-15 Equal-highest Scoring five minute spell
6 5 1.20 16-20 Equal-highest Scoring five minute spell
6 5 1.20 61-65 Equal-highest Scoring five minute spell

5 5 1.00 00-05 Second-equal highest-scoring five-minute spell
5 5 1.00 26-30 Second-equal highest-scoring five-minute spell
5 5 1.00 66-70 Second-equal highest-scoring five-minute spell
5 5 1.00 81-85 Second-equal highest-scoring five-minute spell ("last ten")
8 8 1.00 86-93 Second-equal highest-scoring five-minute spell (Last 8 minutes)

4 5 0.80 46-50 Third-equal highest-scoring five-minute spell
4 5 0.80 56-60 Third-equal highest-scoring five-minute spell

3 5 0.60 35-40 Equal-second-lowest scoring five-minute period
3 5 0.60 51-55 Equal-second-lowest scoring five-minute period
3 5 0.60 76-80 Equal-second-lowest scoring five-minute period
3 6 0.50 41-46 Equal-second-lowest scoring five-minute period
2 5 0.40 71-75 Equal-second-lowest scoring five-minute period

1 5 0.20 06-10 Equal worst period for scoring goals
1 5 0.20 21-25 Equal worst period for scoring goals
1 5 0.20 31-35 Equal worst period for scoring goals

[Snowball]

CM, this "stat" came from the (as usual) attempts to hammer Shane Long.

When I showed he was scoring well per minute played I was told that was because it was so much easier to score in the last 15 minutes.
So what could be fairer than checking that FOR READING?
It's totally clear that Reading's modus operandi, (and some other clubs) is very, very different
For example, compare Boro and Fulham, they are worlds apart.
The reason, therefore, I answer your post "that way" is that I am talking about Long/Reading and was showing (PROVING) that
the team as a whole doesn't score freely in the last fifteen, but that Long is responsible (when a sub) for a high proportion of those goals)

Perhaps we're an exception to the late goals rule BECAUSE we play Shane Long so often in the latter stages of games....

Of COURSE, why didn't I think of that? It's Shane's fault!

That explains why he has scored 3 goals a a sub, 2 late goals as a late sub, but Noel Hunt hasn't scored any goals as a late sub. I understand now.

[Royal Rother]

The time from the 11th to the 20th minute and 61-65) are 20% MORE LIKELY to see us score than the last 10-13 minutes and SIX HUNDRED PER CENT MORE than the three worse periods

Do you REALLY REALLY believe that pattern is going to continue as you suggest in your post?



If I were still a betting man I'd be willing to bet a very substantial sum that we score more goals in the last 10-13 minutes of the remaining games this season than during both of the 11-20th and 61-65th minute segments.

[cmonurz]

Naughty-naughty. Selective Stats Alert! Why not the first 5 minutes versus the last five minutes? (Because, for some reason we dry up in that second five?)

No, not at all.

Simply because your stats surprised me. When I took a look on football365.com, I noticed that the trend I expected was absolutely true for the last 10 minutes of games. In terms of your stats for Reading, it is a quirk that for the last 15 minutes, the stats don't follow the general trend to the same extent (according to the site we do score 25% more goals in the latter period).

I, personally, think it's quite significant that in the last 10 minutes of games, we have scored twice as many goals (13 to 6) than in the first 10 minutes, excluding injury time. If you don't think that is significant, and want to determine that Reading are an exception this rule, then that's up to you, I just made an observation based on some stats I looked up.

FTR here is the whole division, showing % more goals scored in the final 15 minutes to the first 15 minutes, excluding injury time. I have highlighted the exceptions to the general trend.

Wolves -22%
Birmingham -10%
Reading 25%
Cardiff 63%
Sheff U 71%
PNE 300%
Burnley 62%
Swansea 100%
Bristol C 250%
Ipswich -25%
QPR 125%
Sheff W 0%
Crystal Palace 14%
Coventry 57%
Doncaster -67%
Derby 157%
Plymouth 0%
Watford 13%
Blackpool 50%
Forest 80%
Barnsley 0%
Soton 175%
Norwich 350%
Charlton 0%

Division 78%

[Snowball]

The time from the 11th to the 20th minute and 61-65) are 20% MORE LIKELY to see us score than the last 10-13 minutes and SIX HUNDRED PER CENT MORE than the three worse periods

Do you REALLY REALLY believe that pattern is going to continue as you suggest in your post?

No I don't. I merely posted the absolute figures to date.

You can make astute guesses at some of the quiet "fives" (eg we start with a blast, go silly for five-ten mins then run out of puff" or "HT is approaching, let's batten down the hatches")

but these really goal-drought "fives" no idea.

As I said, I posted the figures, make up your own mind.

The POINT though, is that the last 5 (8) and the 5 before that are NOT the heaviest-scoring

If I were still a betting man I'd be willing to bet a very substantial sum that we score more goals in the last 10-13 minutes of the remaining games this season than during both of the 11-20th and 61-65th minute segments.

And your reasons are we are going to change the pattern
of our next 12 games after playing 34 to a standard?

[Snowball]

Naughty-naughty. Selective Stats Alert! Why not the first 5 minutes versus the last five minutes? (Because, for some reason we dry up in that second five?)

No, not at all. Simply because your stats surprised me. When I took a look on football365.com, I noticed that the trend I expected was absolutely true for the last 10 minutes of games. In terms of your stats for Reading, it is a quirk that for the last 15 minutes, the stats don't follow the general trend to the same extent (according to the site we do score 25% more goals in the latter period).

But had you compared the first five to the last 5/8 you would have seen no difference. You didn't spot that by any chance? For some reason you decided against the club's published statistics (broken down into fifteen minute slots)... OK, so then you get FIVE minute slots... but then you choose to COMBINE the 5s into 10s because the stats look more like you want them to be?

Simply taking the 5-minute slots and ranking them in goals-scored shows that the last 5 and ten minutes is nothing special.

I, personally, think it's quite significant that in the last 10 minutes of games, we have scored twice as many goals (13 to 6) than in the first 10 minutes, excluding injury time. If you don't think that is significant, and want to determine that Reading are an exception this rule, then that's up to you, I just made an observation based on some stats I looked up.

But I have shown official stats that show (for example Man U) 29% of games having EXTRA-TIME goals. How can you ignore such a crucial statistic? What about Federici scoring in the last 5 (ha-ha, he scored in the 6th or 7th added minute!)

In that one game, the last 5 minutes was extended to 220% of the norm!

FTR here is the whole division, showing % more goals scored in the final 15 minutes to the first 15 minutes, excluding injury time. I have highlighted the exceptions to the general trend.

Wolves -22%
Birmingham -10%
Reading 25%
Cardiff 63%
Sheff U 71%
PNE 300%
Burnley 62%
Swansea 100%
Bristol C 250%
Ipswich -25%
QPR 125%
Sheff W 0%
Crystal Palace 14%
Coventry 57%
Doncaster -67%
Derby 157%
Plymouth 0%
Watford 13%
Blackpool 50%
Forest 80%
Barnsley 0%
Soton 175%
Norwich 350%
Charlton 0%

Division 78%

I am not sure what you mean with the above stats. Do you mean that any goals scored AFTER the 90th minute are not in these calculations?

Or do you mean that the ratio 15-18 (allowing for overtime) has not been factored in?

[cmonurz]

For the second time, NO, there was ulterior motive to me choosing 10 minutes. I am not going to say that again, and the stats I used are from football365.com, which are broken down into five minute blocks. As I have already explained, the 15 minutes stat surprised me, as true as it is, so I looked at the 10 minutes stat in comparison.

And to confirm, those stats do not include injury time goals, which are shown separately by football365.

[Snowball]

Does it not surprise you that

IF

"It's easier to score in the last 15 minutes"

"Teams score more goals in the last 15 minutes"

that you get this?

-67% Doncaster
-25% Ipswich
-22% Wolves
-10% Birmingham
0% Sheff W
0% Plymouth
0% Barnsley
0% Charlton
13% Watford
14% Crystal Palace
25% Reading



WHY do the top three teams Wolves, Birmingham, Reading, and another 8 teams not find scoring in the last 15 easy?

If you are wondering why Watford, Palace, Reading are there it's because I HAVE added 3 minutes to the end of the game.

That means we should EXPECT 20% differences

With such an incredible difference, the average statistic is patently STUPID. You could take the average and say,

"Doncaster will score 78% more goals in the last fifteen minutes"

when the OPPOSITE is the case.


50% Blackpool
57% Coventry
62% Burnley
63% Cardiff
71% Sheff U
80% Forest
100% Swansea
125% QPR
157% Derby
175% Soton
250% Bristol C
300% PNE
350% Norwich

[cmonurz]

I don't understand what you are asking me.

The 78% stat isn't 'stupid', it's just an observation, like all other statistics. There have been 78% more goals scored in the latter period than at the start of the game.

As I have made quite clear, the stats do NOT include injury time, so your 20% allowance is irrelevant.

You are completely incapable of posting without an aggressive and arrogant tone, so for that reason, having returned to debating with you after a sabbatical, I am once again, out.

[Snowball]

For the second time, NO, there was ulterior motive to me choosing 10 minutes. I am not going to say that again, and the stats I used are from football365.com, which are broken down into five minute blocks. As I have already explained, the 15 minutes stat surprised me, as true as it is, so I looked at the 10 minutes stat in comparison.

But for some reason you didn't choose the five-minute stats.

After all, there they are, in print, ready, in 5-minutes segments, but you went thru' the process of adding them together. WHY?

Surely, if the last 15, last 10, last 5 is all about tiredness and more open play, the last FIVE is what would show up the most?

And yet then we get parity.

And to confirm, those stats do not include injury time goals, which are shown separately by football365.

I find that fantastic. So the most extreme case they score 350% as many goals NOT including extra-time. I'm stunned.

[Snowball]

I don't understand what you are asking me.

The 78% stat isn't 'stupid', it's just an observation, like all other statistics. There have been 78% more goals scored in the latter period than at the start of the game.
As I have made quite clear, the stats do NOT include injury time, so your 20% allowance is irrelevant.
You are completely incapable of posting without an aggressive and arrogant tone, so for that reason, having returned to debating with you after a sabbatical, I am once again, out.

The stat itself isn't stupid, USING it is.

Use an arbitrary number of goals to illustrate

The most extreme cases are -67% and +350%


10 goals first fifteen 03 goals last 15 (-67%)
10 goals first fifteen 18 goals last 15 (average = + 78%)
10 goals first fifteen 35 goals last 15 (+350%)

Note that, the one case is a SIXTH of expected, the other case is TWICE what is predicted, a twelve-fold difference between top and bottom.

The average tells us nothing about individual teams because the spread is ridiculously wide.

[Snowball]

EXAMPLE OF MICKEY-MOUSE STATISTICS

You showed Norwich as 350% more goals in the last 15 compared to the first 15.

The multiplier is actually 450%

But what that neatly-separated stat DOESN'T show is YET AGAIN that the last 15 minutes is NOT special

The period from 60-75 minutes produced 19 goals. The last 15 produced just 8 goals.

So Norwich, if you only look at their conveniently goal-less first 15 appear to suggest that the last 15 is indeed a goal-fest

However in JUST FIVE MINUTES the period from 61-65 minutes Norwich have scored 9 goals, one MORE than the whole of the last 15 minutes.

It is very bad statistics to arbitrarily select the first 5 v last or first 10 v last 10 or 15 v 15

What you must do is RANK segments (5 minutes, or 10 or 15) and see if the last 5/10/15 are the highest scoring

In Norwich's case they are not.

0 00-05
0 06-10
2 11-15

2 16-20
2 21-25
2 26-30

1 31-35
2 36-40
2 41-45

2 46-50
3 51-55
3 56-60

9 61-65 <<<<<<
2 66-70
6 71-75

1 76-80
3 81-85
5 86-90


47

[CMRoyal]

You showed Norwich as 350% more goals in the last 15 compared to the first 15.

The multiplier is actually 450%

But what that neatly-separated stat DOESN'T show is YET AGAIN that the last 15 minutes is NOT special

The period from 60-75 minutes produced 19 goals. The last 15 produced just 8 goals.

So Norwich, if you only look at their conveniently goal-less first 15 appear to suggest that the last 15 is indeed a goal-fest

However in JUST FIVE MINUTES the period from 61-65 minutes Norwich have scored 9 goals, one MORE than the whole of the last 15 minutes.

Those selectively chosen figures seem to add further weight to cmonurz's initial statement that "It isn't flawed to suggest it is 'easier' to score towards the end of the game."

[Snowball]

You showed Norwich as 350% more goals in the last 15 compared to the first 15.

The multiplier is actually 450% But what that neatly-separated stat DOESN'T show is YET AGAIN that the last 15 minutes is NOT special
The period from 60-75 minutes produced 19 goals. The last 15 produced just 8 goals.
So Norwich, if you only look at their conveniently goal-less first 15 appear to suggest that the last 15 is indeed a goal-fest
However in JUST FIVE MINUTES the period from 61-65 minutes Norwich have scored 9 goals, one MORE than the whole of the last 15 minutes.

Those selectively chosen figures seem to add further weight to cmonurz's initial statement that "It isn't flawed to suggest it is 'easier' to score towards the end of the game."

You can put the goal-posts on motorised wheels if you like, and certainly Norwich have real problems scoring in the first half, but how do you account then for one FIVE minute spell, NOT at the end of the game (61 minutes) producing more goals than the whole of the last 15 minutes? THAT doesn't support the hypothesis: "It isn't flawed to suggest it is 'easier' to score towards the end of the game."

[CMRoyal]

You showed Norwich as 350% more goals in the last 15 compared to the first 15.

The multiplier is actually 450% But what that neatly-separated stat DOESN'T show is YET AGAIN that the last 15 minutes is NOT special
The period from 60-75 minutes produced 19 goals. The last 15 produced just 8 goals.
So Norwich, if you only look at their conveniently goal-less first 15 appear to suggest that the last 15 is indeed a goal-fest
However in JUST FIVE MINUTES the period from 61-65 minutes Norwich have scored 9 goals, one MORE than the whole of the last 15 minutes.

Those selectively chosen figures seem to add further weight to cmonurz's initial statement that "It isn't flawed to suggest it is 'easier' to score towards the end of the game."

You can put the goal-posts on motorised wheels if you like, and certainly Norwich have real problems scoring in the first half, but how do you account then for one FIVE minute spell, NOT at the end of the game (61 minutes) producing more goals than the whole of the last 15 minutes? THAT doesn't support the hypothesis: "It isn't flawed to suggest it is 'easier' to score towards the end of the game."

I know you think we're all idiots, but I'm not being drawn into some specious discussion about Norwich.

I'm off to get a life - suggest you do the same.