The Snowball stat thread

[winchester_royal]

I think Snowball just had a mental breakdown.

Still, after polite responses from myself and winch, I think it's pretty evident now where Snowball sits in the grand scheme of this discussion board, simultaneously illustrating his failure to grasp what such a forum involves (it's not about trying to change your mind pal!) as well as showing the contempt he has for anyone who questions him.

I, me, myself, the person residing in my body, the person typing this
IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE HIS MIND. I do not (not even slightly)
give a monkey's oxf*rd what you think.

What a total asshole.

Quite.

And lolz at coming onto an internet forum if you don't want to debate your ideas with people who disagree with you.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Last 6 games and last 10 games, are about right for current form IMHO, or 8 and 12.

Other good pointers are good runs within a season, unbeaten, wins in a row etc etc.

SB will this form table carry on up to game 46 and the end of the season?

Oh and Mills has hardly set the team on fire has he, PS wasnt this supposed to be this season V last season rather than form?

We are currently 3 points better of than the same number of games last season, thats an improvement in anyones book.

[Platypuss]

I think Snowball just had a mental breakdown.

Still, after polite responses from myself and winch, I think it's pretty evident now where Snowball sits in the grand scheme of this discussion board, simultaneously illustrating his failure to grasp what such a forum involves (it's not about trying to change your mind pal!) as well as showing the contempt he has for anyone who questions him.

I, me, myself, the person residing in my body, the person typing this
IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE HIS MIND. I do not (not even slightly)
give a monkey's oxf*rd what you think.

What a total asshole.

Quite.

And lolz at coming onto an internet forum if you don't want to debate your ideas with people who disagree with you.

Come come! We should all be humbly grateful that one so great has deigned to share his wisdom with mere mortals like us.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

assist for Roberts for winning the pen as well?

[Snowball]

I think Snowball just had a mental breakdown.

Yes of course I did. I posted a couple of posts to a couple of idiots, had a glass of sherry.
watched the Chelsea Man Utd goals, peeled the spuds and carrots for the Mrs then ate a baby.

The "spleen" you simple-minded oxf*rd is just that spleen. And me being very very specific
that my stats in this case are fine, legitimate, fair and continuing, unchanging.

In the last couple of hours the moron-relay happens to be you and Winch. Next it'll be another pair of morons. That's fine.

PS Man Utd have just equalised

Still, after polite responses from myself and winch, I think it's pretty evident now where Snowball sits in the grand scheme of this discussion board, simultaneously illustrating his failure to grasp what such a forum involves (it's not about trying to change your mind pal!) as well as showing the contempt he has for anyone who questions him.

Look up "passive-aggressive" some time toss-pot

You have ZERO intention of being "polite" to me in any way shape or form. Stop lying about it.

You just LOVE to have a go. Sometimes you're sarcastic, sometimes you pretend to be polite,
sometimes you piggy-back some other tosser, but you don't like me and I don't like you. End.

I, me, myself, the person residing in my body, the person typing this
IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE HIS MIND. I do not (not even slightly)
give a monkey's oxf*rd what you think.

What a total asshole.

One day, little-one, you will be on the end of a barrage from many.

I have made my totally reasonable position clear, AND that I will
maintain it until the end of the season no matter what.

Given that, ask what is the motivation of those who keep asking for it to be changed


Yeah got, it.

[cmonurz]

assist for Roberts for winning the pen as well?

Shit's crazy bro'.

[cmonurz]

I think Snowball just had a mental breakdown.

Yes of course I did. I posted a couple of posts to a couple of idiots, had a glass of sherry.
watched the Chelsea Man Utd goals, peeled the spuds and carrots for the Mrs then ate a baby.

The "spleen" you simple-minded oxf*rd is just that spleen. And me being very very specific
that my stats in this case are fine, legitimate, fair and continuing, unchanging.

In the last couple of hours the moron-relay happens to be you and Winch. Next it'll be another pair of morons. That's fine.

PS Man Utd have just equalised

Still, after polite responses from myself and winch, I think it's pretty evident now where Snowball sits in the grand scheme of this discussion board, simultaneously illustrating his failure to grasp what such a forum involves (it's not about trying to change your mind pal!) as well as showing the contempt he has for anyone who questions him.

Look up "passive-aggressive" some time toss-pot

You have ZERO intention of being "polite" to me in any way shape or form. Stop lying about it.

You just LOVE to have a go. Sometimes you're sarcastic, sometimes you pretend to be polite,
sometimes you piggy-back some other tosser, but you don't like me and I don't like you. End.

I, me, myself, the person residing in my body, the person typing this
IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE HIS MIND. I do not (not even slightly)
give a monkey's oxf*rd what you think.

What a total asshole.

One day, little-one, you will be on the end of a barrage from many.

I have made my totally reasonable position clear, AND that I will
maintain it until the end of the season no matter what.

Given that, ask what is the motivation of those who keep asking for it to be changed


Yeah got, it.

Marvellous. I'm pretty speechless, you will be pleased to hear. Equally rude, arrogant, aggressive, petulant and paranoid, you have zero understanding of what an internet discussion forum is about. People disagree with you, and you turn on them like a Pit Bull whose teeth fell out.

Reading your replies is becoming as pitiful as it is startling.

That you don't believe someone might want to debate your methods is your own problem, I'm more than comfortable that my intentions were honourable, and I'll take the generally held opinion of me on this forum (that if anything I'm at times a little earnest) over your bile-filled ranting.

As for 'I don't like you' - well there's one thing you've definitely got wrong. You're a faceless person on a discussion board, with whom I disagree about a couple of things. That's it.

Good day sir.

[Snowball]

Well then use the whole 28 games.

When I gave you a lift back from a game I thought you were a normal human being.

Which bit of "The first six games were a write off" do you not understand?

If you can't be rational, stop talking.

You can't just base your decision based on when Reading started playing well it's ridiculous.

I-CAN.
I-HAVE
I-WILL-CONTINUE

I am NOT saying we are the best team in the league.

More or less that is the 46 game season result (although we know that the team that finishes top might no longer be the best but they are awarded the prize of AVERAGING the best over 46 games.

But what Ia am saying. (And try reading ACTUALLY what I am saying for a change is:

OVER THE LAST 22 games
Over the last 22 games in total
Over the last 22 games as an average

We are second by a tiny margin.

Had we won at Doncaster (if they game had been on)

We would be, over a consecutive 23 games (half-a-season) the best side or the second best side by a whisker.

And Had we won at Doncaster (if they game had been on) we would have been BY FAR the best team in the league (points wise) for the last 12 games.


You seem not to have the intellectual capacity to understand that a team can IMPROVE.

if a horse it dead-last for all but the last half-furlong, do you say it cannot win?

of course not.

Next you'll be telling us the Palace game doesn't count because we had a good goal ruled out, or that these last few games are void because Ledge hasn't been playing.

Pathetic. You are pathetic. Building a straw man so you can knock it down.

Tell you what, if I ever say, "I'm not using the Palace game in my stats" (for the reasons you give)
I will give £1,000 to the charity of your choice.

grow up and stop inventing.

And no, that's a cliche that is just wrong.

Evidence, Einstein?

That is a BS statement with NOTHING to back it up.

According to you a 6 game form is not, on average,
more accurate than 3-games. 12 is not more accurate than 9


Yeah right

Variables do not always equal out in football, and using a
smaller sample ensures that the form guide gives a good account
of the current state of those variables, and hence a better idea
of what will happen in the next few games.

Please quote this (bolded) gibberish any time I think you are rational

What that actual says is should RFC play at home to the bottom 5 clubs
each of which has two players sent off in the first ten minutes and
we win all 5 game 5-0...

it gives "a better idea of what will happen in the next few games."

Away to the top five where WE get a player sent off.


Your statement ranks with the stupidest ever posted on this board

[1871 Royal]

I am so rattLOLed

[winchester_royal]

Okay, first off, we've never met.

And as for the rest of your post....

Wading through that plethora of insults and cheap jibes one thing stood out. It is a widespread idea that form over the last 5/10 games is a very good indicator of what will happen in the next match. For example, in the 08/09 season despite being first/second in the table right up until the last match, our home form (i.e. previous FIVE games) was pretty shocking throughout that last half of the season, and hence we went into each home game with a pretty good idea of what was going to happen, and oh gosh, the shortened version of form proved to be the better source of predictions.

You remind me of my former Latin teacher, she hated being disagreed with as well. So much so that she actually burst into tears when the class tried to point out an obvious error. You belong in a classroom, where you can live out your little fantasy of being God and punish anyone who chooses to argue with you, not on a football forum.

[Snowball]

Last 6 games and last 10 games, are about right for current form IMHO, or 8 and 12.

That's a STATEMENT not an argument.

How do you argue your point with someone who says "8 games is not enough, I think 9 is the lowest, but 12 ideally" ?

SB will this form table carry on up to game 46 and the end of the season?

I have said COUNTLESS times, why I have taken the Games 7-46 stance,
but will repeat it for someone who was on Mars the 99 times I actually said it.

I start at game 7 because that was the first indication that we had turned the corner from a horrible period of disarray where we played 5/6 different FBs in 6 games, had Khumalo playing, lost Long, had the Wembley hangover, blooded 3 new players, had Griffin break down twice, lost Harte, had Elwood horribly off form etc etc etc

I have said virtually every time I've posted last 12, last 13, last 14, ever-increasing that this is THE MOST REALIST APPRAISAL of the squad/team's worth, BECAUSE the first six games don't remotely reflect what kind of team we have. And every time I have said that it will go 20-21-22-23-24 etc all the way to 40

How many times do I have to say exactly the same thing?

Oh and Mills has hardly set the team on fire has he,

Disagree. he came in, helped us stabilize. At the time Harte was awful, played well
(and many felt he shouldn't have been dropped)

Prior to Mills first start we averaged .67 points per game

He started with a defeat to Watford and then had just 2 defeats in 10 games

0-2 Watford
2-0 Doncaster
1-1 Coventry
3-2 Bristol
0-0 Boro
1-0 Burnley
2-2 Derby
1-1 Southampton
0-0 Palace
0-1 Forest
1-0 Birmingham
1-2 Cardiff

W4 D5 L3 12-11 17 Points in 11 games 1.42 points per game, which compare rather well with .67 which is what it was when he started

Our defensive record for those games (concedes .92 goals) was BETTER than it is for the season overall (concedes .96)

He did OK, thank-you and made a great goal.

PS wasnt this supposed to be this season V last season rather than form?

It's making comparisons between season, so?

THIS season, IMO, is distorted by those first six games



[quote]
We are currently 3 points better of than the same number of games last season, that's an improvement in anyones book.[/quote

No, that happens to be a fact that we are 3 points better.

It isn't necessarily "improvement.

It isn't considering who we've played
or factoring in last year's amazing consecutive-wins run

[Arch]

Not surprisingly, bit of extremism all round.

As a general rule, 22 games is too much to judge form on, because you could have lost your last seven in a row and still have an average of two points a game. However, if you can look at the 22 as a whole and figure out that performance has been pretty consistent (say, you can take any five or six game run in that 22 and the average is up around 1.8 or more) then there's some point in using the 22 as a guide to how good we are.

FWIW, I don't think six games is enough as a form guide, since you could go from playoff form to flirting with relegation form based on one result and that's too much of a swing in my mind. So seven is the minimum for me. On the other hand, ten games is too many because you could in principle lose four in a row and still be looking at 1.8 points per game. So, for me it's 7-9 games that matter in judging how good our current form is. Nevertheless, every 7-9 game run over the last 22 games has been good, so it's not outlandish to take that period as having some significance.

[cmonurz]

How difficult is it to understand the premise of my question - not that 22 games is necessarily unsuitable by which to judge our performance but that it's justification becomes unsuitable when you compare us to other sides over that same run, since it can only be fair to apply the same criteria to their respective seasons - when their team was settled, stopped losing players, didn't have loads of injuries etc.

We had a dodgy 6 games at the start of the season - the likelihood is every other team in that 22-game form table has had a dodgy 6 games or so, difference is many of them will have had it in the middle of our 22-game 'run'.

So our figures don't include our bad patch, and theirs do. Which is fundamentally flawed.

[Snowball]

Okay, first off, we've never met.

I thought I gave "Winchester Royal" a lift from Cardiff to reading
(despite living in Newbury). My mistake then, it was someone with a very
similar HobNob ID

And as for the rest of your post....

How very reasoned of you.

[winchester_royal]

Okay, first off, we've never met.

I thought I gave "Winchester Royal" a lift from Cardiff to reading
(despite living in Newbury). My mistake then, it was someone with a very
similar HobNob ID

And as for the rest of your post....

How very reasoned of you.

Yeah that's a different guy. I'd have changed my username by now but Graham hasn't got round to activating my other account.

And feel free to tackle the rest of my post.

[Arch]

How difficult is it to understand the premise of my question - not that 22 games is necessarily unsuitable by which to judge our performance but that it's justification becomes unsuitable when you compare us to other sides over that same run, since it can only be fair to apply the same criteria to their respective seasons - when their team was settled, stopped losing players, didn't have loads of injuries etc.

We had a dodgy 6 games at the start of the season - the likelihood is every other team in that 22-game form table has had a dodgy 6 games or so, difference is many of them will have had it in the middle of our 22-game 'run'.

So our figures don't include our bad patch, and theirs do. Which is fundamentally flawed.

Good.

[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.

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

Agreed entirely.

Although I'm surprised that you (a) overheard my conversation and (b) remembered it.

[Snowball]

How difficult is it to understand the premise of my question - not that 22 games is necessarily unsuitable by which to judge our performance but that it's justification becomes unsuitable when you compare us to other sides over that same run, since it can only be fair to apply the same criteria to their respective seasons - when their team was settled, stopped losing players, didn't have loads of injuries etc.

We had a dodgy 6 games at the start of the season - the likelihood is every other team in that 22-game form table has had a dodgy 6 games or so, difference is many of them will have had it in the middle of our 22-game 'run'.

So our figures don't include our bad patch, and theirs do. Which is fundamentally flawed.

Curious

Would you say this was a bad patch?

2-2
1-1
0-0
0-1
1-0
1-2

W1 D3 L2 5-6

Bad Patch, yes? 6 points from 6 games


That happened IN THIS 22 GAME RUN


H 2-2 DERBY
H 1-1 Southampton
A 0-0 Crystal Palace
A 0-1 Nottm Forest
H 1-0 Birmingham
H 1-2 Cardiff


Next bleat?

[Snowball]

Not surprisingly, bit of extremism all round.

As a general rule, 22 games is too much to judge form on, because you could have lost your last seven in a row and still have an average of two points a game. However, if you can look at the 22 as a whole and figure out that performance has been pretty consistent (say, you can take any five or six game run in that 22 and the average is up around 1.8 or more) then there's some point in using the 22 as a guide to how good we are.

FWIW, I don't think six games is enough as a form guide, since you could go from playoff form to flirting with relegation form based on one result and that's too much of a swing in my mind. So seven is the minimum for me. On the other hand, ten games is too many because you could in principle lose four in a row and still be looking at 1.8 points per game. So, for me it's 7-9 games that matter in judging how good our current form is. Nevertheless, every 7-9 game run over the last 22 games has been good, so it's not outlandish to take that period as having some significance.

Arch, thank you for a reasoned post


But my 18-19-20-21-22 increasing game table has never been about "current form"


All it has ever been about is

"This is a true representation of the team once it had been sorted."


As I've said we played
Cummings, Griffin, Harte, Mills, Gunnarson at FB (at least) in the first 6 games, plus Khumalo who couldn't get IN THE SQUAD after game 4. We were even starting Manset.

I haven't been talking about "current form". Who would call half a season current form?

Our current form is MUCH BETTER than our 22 game form

I have been talking about discounting the terrible opening, just like we discounted McDermott's first few games until he became permanent manager


Try looking at this graph

http://www.statto.com/football/img/progress/ACCANABCkT

[West Stand Man]

Quite.

And lolz at coming onto an internet forum if you don't want to debate your ideas with people who disagree with you.

The problem is that you are trying to disagree with fact as well as opinion. It is all well and good to debate opinion but when someone is simply stating a fact you really are on thin ice. It helps if people can spot the difference.