The Snowball stat thread

[rfc2001]

I agree with Snowball. Assists are relative to the situation. Earning a penalty is a little different from a standard chance.

If you can't see that then you are an idiot.

[rfc2001]

A penalty assist would be considered a major contribution because it's a clear cut chance.

A major contribution is something that affects the game!

[Snowball]

I agree with Snowball. Assists are relative to the situation. Earning a penalty is a little different from a standard chance.

If you can't see that then you are an idiot.

Thank-you 2001

Earning a penalty is normally MUCH BETTER than a standard chance

These are RFC Figures for shooting this year


143 On Target
127 Off Target
009 Hit Wordwork

279 Actual Shots-headers, never mind shots (chances) blocked or crowded out
051 Shots from outside the box (c 20% guesstimate)
034 Goals
228 Actual shots-headers in the box


Worse than 1 in 8 scored = 12.18%
1 in 7 scored when chance is in the box 14.3%

I believe 85% of penalties in actual games are scored.

http://www.scienceofsocceronline.com/20 ... mbers.html



Thus winning a penalty is SEVEN TIMES BETTER than an average assisting pass which allows a shot or header

Obviously some of the shot stats will include 20-30 yarders. Take them out, say 20% of shots (don't think it's that many)

Thus EXCLUDING shots from outside the box, penalties won
produce SIX TIMES as MANY GOALS as other chances in the box

[Maguire]

I agree with Snowball. Assists are relative to the situation. Earning a penalty is a little different from a standard chance.

If you can't see that then you are an idiot.

So if you cross a ball onto someone's head six yards out and they miss, you'd give them an assist too? Complete madness.

Bad Science rears its ugly head yet again.

[Simon's Church]

So does Roberts get 2 assists for his goal? One for winning the penalty and the second for forcing the save from James that allowed him to score?

[Ian Herring]

I recall when the term 'assist' first came into use in English football parlance when the game of 'soccer' was first pushed as a fabricated marketing franchise in the United States of America in the 1970s.

#baseballcapbritain

[Bandini]

As a child playing football I recall saying "set-up", which encompasses a broader description than "assist". I only remember "assists" being used when fantasy football started.

[Maguire]

As a child playing football I recall saying "set-up", which encompasses a broader description than "assist". I only remember "assists" being used when fantasy football started.

The problem is that if you're going to get statistics involved you have to base them on hard, incontrovertible data (well, most of us do anyway). And the only way to do this is define hard and fast rules re: assists, for example the last player to touch the ball before the goal. Anything else is subjective or ill-defined and makes your data analysis redundant.

"Set-up, YES!"

"Na, na, I touched it last brushed my shin"

"No way! My set-up, i am skills and ace"

"SHUT UP"

"You SHUT UP"
etc

[Snowball]

So does Roberts get 2 assists for his goal? One for winning the penalty and the second for forcing the save from James that allowed him to score?

Roberts gets an assist and a goal.

IMO if a player follows up his own saved pen he scores a pen. I don't care what it says officially.

And if he wins a pen he gets an assist (but you can call it a major contribution if you're so precious)
REGARDLESS of the outcome of the penalty.

Seriously, anyone who thinks winning a penalty that is scored is better than winning a penalty that is SAVED is simply not very bright.

Say you're a bloke, you have a row with your Mrs
and she goes out determined to shag your neighbour so she can't.

But he's not at home. Therefore your Mrs is faithful. Yeah, OK.

[Snowball]

Imagine we had a player who played 46 games and won 60 penalites
of which only 30 were scored.

This player never scores a goal. Arguably never has an assist, or only has 30.

He most certainly didn't pass to the scorer.


Now if you award no assists you're just thick.

If you say 30 of the "winning-a-enalty moments" are worth assists
(because the pens became goals) but the other thirty "winning-a-penalty moments"
don't count at all because the penalty was saved, then you're just doubly thick.

[Snowball]

Maguire they award assists to a player who knows nothing about it.
eg a clearance hits Church up the ass and drops to Hunt, who scores.

They also award goals to players who know nothing about it.
eg a shot is going wide, hits Church's heel

[SCIAG]

Surely you should count every goal scoring chance created as an assist then?

What's the difference in CULPABILITY
between murder and attempted murder?

If I try to kill you and fail
why is that different from
trying to kill you and succeeding?

The difference is that I get to carry on living, my family don't have to grieve, and you don't go to prison for as long. The consequences of our actions are important. An even better example is if you hit me and I (don't) die- the outcome of your punch determines whether you get a few years for assault or life for murder.

If Kebe goes round the keeper and gently squares it for an unmarked ALF to tap into an open net, he gets an assist if ALF scores. If there's no goal, there's no assist.

Or think of the time you were outraged because Church poached a goalbound shot from Kebe to claim the goal for his own. If Church had managed to stand on the ball and had stopped it going in, would Kebe deserve an assist? Would Harte deserve a "half assist"? They did exactly the same thing.

Surely you see the inconsistency in your argument? (If you don't, please have the decency not to insult me).

[RobRoyal]

Seriously, anyone who thinks winning a penalty that is scored is better than winning a penalty that is SAVED is simply not very bright.

Well, seeing as how you're famously bright, I take it you're awarding assists for chances created in open play that are missed?

[Mr Angry]

But Manset DOES get those figures. They are FACTS. Do you see me ANYWHERE screaming that he should be played
ahead of Roberts, ALF, Hunt? Nope! I have just stuck the figures up. Make of them whatever you like.

I do not necessarily believe that we are a better side with Manset playing but as it
happens i DO believe that had he played in every game he'd be over 10 goals scored.

I didn't say you were screaming for Manset to be played; I was just making the point that someone looking simply at the stats would be.

However, I'm curious as to why you think he would have scored over 10 goals had he been played in every game?

Take out the 2 goals scored in the 22 minutes he was on in the first match against Millwall, he has scored 1 goal in 424 minutes of play - or, in other words, 1 goal in just under 5 games (and thats if his fitness were to allow him to play a continuous 90 minutes of course).

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that had he played every match he would have scored 10 goals; for someone to suggest that he would based on what they have witnessed from the lad when he actually played, seems bizarre and based purely on gut feel.

[Simon's Church]

So surely Antonio deserves an assist for putting it on a plate for Hunt 2 yards out? I'm sure the ratio of people scoring from 2 yards out is better than our ratio of penalty conversion this season.

[Snowball]

I didn't say you were screaming for Manset to be played; I was just making the point that someone looking simply at the stats would be.

If they were STUPID, sure. But if they had a basic IQ of, say 100 they might note how few minutes he had played
and understand that he "could have got lucky", that he might have come on against 9 men (or whatever)

The guy has played just 500 minutes so he could be ANYTHING. I personally (subjectively) believe he's a lot better
then people think (or will be better) UNLESS he has a basic physiological/psychological deficit that prevents him
from getting fit at the level RFC expects.

BECAUSE he has only played 515 minutes, a single goal or a single assist has a MASSIVE effect.

515/4 = 129
515/3 = 172
515/2 = 258

Double his minutes and suddenly a one-extra-goal has much less effect. That's why I merely "note"
what he's done and keep an eye on him.

But now add his league last season another 459 minutes for 2 more goals and an assist

So his RFC league stats are 905 minutes for 6 goals and 2 assists = 112 minutes per Major Contribution


Of course we are doing a good job of destroying his confidence right now but those stats are very good indeed

If, playing regularly he was only HALF as good he'd be doing as well as Church and HRK.

However, I'm curious as to why you think he would have scored over 10 goals had he been played in every game?

Take out the 2 goals scored in the 22 minutes he was on in the first match against Millwall, he has scored 1 goal in 424 minutes of play - or, in other words, 1 goal in just under 5 games (and thats if his fitness were to allow him to play a continuous 90 minutes of course).

What a VERY strange thing to say. What possible justification have you in taking away his goals? Church ALSO came on for twenty minutes in a game and scored tow. Should we remove those too? Alf came on for ten minutes at Watford and scored. Should we remove that goal?

No, we total ALL minutes and ALL goals/assists knowing that the more minutes the more "real" the stats become.

Take away Church's brace and he has score 4 goals in 22 appearances (1440 minutes)

Taking away NOTHING from Hunt he has 1515 minutes for 3 goals. One of those was in a brief sub appearances. How does 2 in 1495 sound?

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that had he played every match he would have scored 10 goals; for someone to suggest that he would
based on what they have witnessed from the lad when he actually played, seems bizarre and based purely on gut feel.

You're HILARIOUS. You're the one using subjectivity and gut-feel

We KNOW that, raw, unfit last year and semi fit this year his stats are

905 minutes for 6 goals and 2 assists = 112 minutes per Major Contribution

That is the equivalent of TEN full games. If he played a whole season of 46+2 games 48 games
almost FIVE times as much, "theoretically" he would score thirty goals and 10 assists.

And all I'm saying is TEN goals in 28 = 2,520 minutes a rate of 1 in 252 minutes when hes already managing 112

Now all I am doing is saying " I expect him to perform at a rate equal or better than 112/252 = 44%
of WHAT HE HAS ALREADY SHOWN, FACTUAL, ACTUAL, RECORDED.

Any normal human being would expect a player getting regular pitch time to learn more,
develop an understanding with team-mates etc. Yet I am not even predicting he would do HALF AS WELL
as his already-recorded figures.

I have solid, logical, reasonable justification for my (pessimistic) claims

You just say "It's obvious he's no good."

[Snowball]

Seriously, anyone who thinks winning a penalty that is scored is better than winning a penalty that is SAVED is simply not very bright.

Well, seeing as how you're famously bright, I take it you're awarding assists for chances created in open play that are missed?

Well seeing as your proving you're NOT, I'll explain again

(a) We don't RECORD instances of who gives X a shooting chance. (unless that results in a goal)

(b) IF we did we would need to talk about and somehow measure the QUALITY of that offered chance. I might give Siggy, under pressure, a pass 25 yards out, or I might give Hunt a pass in total space one yard out. They are not comparable. But we CAN say, "A pass which helped to make a goal is worth recording."

In the case of winning a penalty, we are giving a player a 1-on-1 chance with no defenders except the keeper
and the keeper is supposed to stay on his line. There is no comparison!

[Snowball]

The difference is that I get to carry on living, my family don't have to grieve, and you don't go to prison for as long. The consequences of our actions are important. An even better example is if you hit me and I (don't) die- the outcome of your punch determines whether you get a few years for assault or life for murder.

Utterly wrong. The INTENT is the crime. And it's the intent that should be punished.

Take this situation. Two identical twins try to kill two other identical twins
and they deliver identical blows with identical anger and premeditation.

They will BOTH die in the next five minutes.

If nobody intervenes they WILL Die and both the murderer-twins will be found guilty of murder.

But right at that moment a doctor appears and he can JUST save one of the "stabbed" twins.

He tosses a coin and saves twin A. A lives, B dies. How the oxf*rd is there any difference in what the murderer-twins did?

it's random, chance who lived.


There is a huge body of study called "The attribution of blame" where the error you're now making has been highlighted


see next post.

[Snowball]

A bloke, a total low-life, couldn't give a shit about anyone
deliberately doesn't bother to service his car, doesn't care
what happens if the brakes go, or whatever.

He KNOWS his brakes are right on the brink of failing
but nevertheless he parks the car at the top of a hill
above a school for orphans.

The brakes fail, the car runs down the hill. It's just about to mow down
and kill twenty sweet little kiddies and he watches and laughs.

But, Sod's Law, at the last second the car turns and hits a wall and nobody is hurt.


========

In a parallel street, a GOOD bloke, who always has his car serviced and always checks his brakes
every day, and doesn't park on hills "just to be extra safe", and even then puts the car in reverse
gear and also turns the wheel in...

But by a series of circumstances, the car is knocked out of gear, the brakes DO fail, the wheels turn
the car rolls down the hill and KILLS the 20 kids.



=========================


What punishment should the low-life get?
What punishment should the good guy get?

What do you think 99% of people actually SAY should happen?

[Snowball]

Form Table since September 17th

We didn't play today and West Ham beat a relegation cli=ub


We still look good, though

Second best number of wins (played a game less)
Highest number of clean sheets (played a game less)
Second highest number of points but a game in hand on 8 clubs, 2 games in hand on Burnley
Third best GD



01 23 13-4-06 10 Clean Sheets 31-23 +08 43 1.87 West Ham United (Beat them 3-0)
02 22 12-5-05 10 Clean Sheets 30-19 +11 41 1.86 Reading
03 23 11-7-05 08 Clean Sheets 38-20 +18 40 1.74 Birmingham City (Beat them 1-0)
04 23 10-9-04 08 Clean Sheets 37-27 +10 39 1.70 Cardiff City (2 Defeats)
05 22 11-4-07 09 Clean Sheets 24-19 +05 37 1.68 Hull City (1 Defeats)
06 23 11-5-07 06 Clean Sheets 36-31 +05 38 1.65 Leeds United (Beat them 1-0)
07 24 12-3-09 08 Clean Sheets 37-26 +11 39 1.62 Burnley (Beat them 1-0)
08 23 10-7-06 07 Clean Sheets 36-23 +13 37 1.61 Southampton (1-1)
09 23 10-7-06 06 Clean Sheets 40-31 +09 37 1.61 Blackpool (Unlucky 1-0 defeat)

W4 D1 L4 9-8 against these top clubs in this run 13 Points from 9 games
10 23 10-3-10 03 Clean Sheets 38-40 -02 33 1.43 Barnsley
11 23 08-9-06 10 Clean Sheets 21-25 -40 33 1.43 Middlesbrough