The Snowball stat thread

[Svlad Cjelli]

And, more pertinently, will you take into account the time of contributions and whether they were subs, etc?

A fresh substitute coming on against a tired defence may find it easier to make contributions - but looking at stats as baldly as this gives no credit to the previous striker who may have run that defence ragged for 75 minutes in order to create that tired defence for the fresh sub to take advantage of.

Its a team game, and each individuals performances and opportunities are influenced by so any factors that can't be measured.

[Maguire]

LOL@ "half assists"

[Ian Royal]

Seriously, if you're going to post up this sort of stat, you need to make a big effort to actually get it right. And if you're going to include things like half assists, or key contributions to goals, you absolutely have to do it for every goal in every game for it to be useful. Not just players you like in recent games, which seriously undermines your reliability and credibility.

TBH I think you also need to do it based on having watched every goal yourself carefully as well, because we all know how reliable PA statistics and reports are. Particularly for assists and key contributions.

[Maguire]

These "stats" are a mockery of a sham

[Snowball]

Seriously, if you're going to post up this sort of stat, you need to make a big effort to actually get it right.

I try very hard to get it wrong, naturally.

The OS is very iffy this year. Example in this last game Hunt wins a header near the half-way line. ball hits a defender,
the HRK wins ball, drives forward twenty yards beating two players, and the OS awards an assist to Hunt? Please!

IMO that's a solo goal.

And if you're going to include things like half assists, or key contributions to goals, you absolutely have to do it for every
goal in every game for it to be useful. Not just players you like in recent games, which seriously undermines your reliability and credibility.

I don't HAVE to do anything. I made it clear why I had awarded these particular three "half-assists". They were MAJOR contributions
(of an attacking kind) that were a large part of the making of the goals.

I've since been through the OS (and did my best to remember the games) and I cannot think of
any other similar (attacking) contributions.

To imagine that Harte doesn't deserve an accolade for the Kebe-Church goal is frankly silly. It was a peach of a cross
that set Kebe up. The fact that Church OneYard stole the glory distorts the reality of cross and header.

And Harte again set u Jimmy for Alf's goal. But, as I said, I posted my reasons. No-one has to accept them.
They can stay blinkered and unreasonable if that's what they want to be.

Cast your mind back to the breathtaking length-of-the-field run by Kebe last season. OFFICIALLY he didn't
get a goal or an assist, and yet, as far as I'm concerned, it will always be "Kebe's Goal" (and yes I know it
wasn't him who actually scored...)

TBH I think you also need to do it based on having watched every goal yourself carefully as well, because we all know how reliable PA statistics and reports are. Particularly for assists and key contributions.

I don't think there are any other seriously large contributions other than the three mentioned.

I DON'T include say, a tackle in our half, a nice lay-off, or some excellent running off the ball,
or a striker "wearing down a defence"... That's just "the game", but sometimes, for example, there's
a sublime through-ball, player goes through and instead of shooting passes to an unmarked striker

Sure there's the obvious assist, but it's worth crediting the brilliant through-ball too

[Snowball]

Fair enough, I think it's a worthy attempt to reflect a players attacking worth, but how are you applying this across the rest of the season? If you're going to put these stats up as a guide to attacking contribution it really needs to be consistent across all players and all goals throughout the season.

Usually I keep track ongoing but this season I'm on two degree courses and off my head.

I HAVE however done some retrospective work and I think, that these three are the only real "secondaries"

Will you include a run off the ball that is key to a player having the space to either make or receive a pass?

No. I agree it's important, as is battering centre-halves or playing so well asa winger
that two players are marking you (etc etc etc)... By half-assists I'm thinking of clear-cut
actual passes, shots that help to make a goal.

I do of course realise that Feds making a save, Gorks receiving the throw out, Pearce offering an alternative pass,
Harte finding Elwood, Elwood getting the ball to Kebe ALL might contribute to a goal, but the caseof the three so far
mentioned are of a completely different quality IMO

I'm fully behind the fact that more than one player can 'assist' a goal, I just think it's very difficult to measure accurately
and it will still come down to your much feared human process of recall and perception.

Of course. That's why I said which goals and why.

[Snowball]

the OS gives McAnuff 4 assists

why has he only got two on your list?

Because they are wrong?


They apparently gave an assist against Bristol. I have the assists down as HRK, Cummings and Tabb

McAnuff took the corner from which (eventually) Morrisson scored, but I don't call a loose ball as an assist

But if others know differnetly, just say so.

[Svlad Cjelli]

And, more pertinently, will you take into account the time of contributions and whether they were subs, etc?

A fresh substitute coming on against a tired defence may find it easier to make contributions - but looking at stats as baldly as this gives no credit to the previous striker who may have run that defence ragged for 75 minutes in order to create that tired defence for the fresh sub to take advantage of.

It's a team game, and each individuals performances and opportunities are influenced by so any factors that can't be measured.

No response to this post, Snowball?

[Snowball]

And, more pertinently, will you take into account the time of contributions and whether they were subs, etc?

A fresh substitute coming on against a tired defence may find it easier to make contributions - but looking at stats as baldly as this gives no credit to the previous striker who may have run that defence ragged for 75 minutes in order to create that tired defence for the fresh sub to take advantage of.

It's a team game, and each individuals performances and opportunities are influenced by so any factors that can't be measured.

No response to this post, Snowball?

Do you remember when Shane Long was scoring late goals as a
sub and I said how good he was in goals per minute and that he
would be a 20-goal a season man in the Championship and a 10-goal
a season Premiership player?

I was shot down by people saying he "only got goals" because others
had worn down the opposition defenders. Kevin Doyle, strangely,
though he was still on the pitch DIDN'T take such advantage of
tired defenders. (Presumably because HE was tired too?)

And yet, last season Shane Long scored goals...

08-18-25-28-29-30-31-32-37-37-41-43-43
52-54-58-62-66-68-68-68-80-87-87-89

More goals in the first half than the second

16 goals in the first hour,

just four of his goals in the last ten minutes

Who was wearing down the enemy, then?

Next theory?

[T.R.O.L.I.]

Next theory?

Perhaps it will be that you use a large font because you're a patronising whingebag.

[melonhead]

the OS gives McAnuff 4 assists

why has he only got two on your list?

Because they are wrong?


They apparently gave an assist against Bristol. I have the assists down as HRK, Cummings and Tabb

McAnuff took the corner from which (eventually) Morrisson scored, but I don't call a loose ball as an assist

But if others know differnetly, just say so.

already did. the official site says differently.

[Hoop Blah]

Next theory?

Seeing as you can't debunk that one you want to move on to the next?

More goals are scored in the latter stages of games than at any other point in a game. Part of that is down to tiredness which in turn leads to mistakes.

The fact that Long ended up scoring a decent number of goals (although take out the penalties and it's not quite as impressive a goals return) doesn't disprove the theory.

He turned around his form and the team played to his strengths, which he in turned maximised, but then scored what, 16 or 17 goals in 50 games (once you take out the pens)?

He carried us at times, but none of that means he didn't benefit from playing a higher proportion of his minutes in the most productive stages of matches when his role was largely to come off the bench.

[melonhead]

Long ended up scoring a decent number of goals (although take out the penalties and it's not quite as impressive a goals return)

LOL!

give it up

[Hoop Blah]

I've held my hands up and been happy to admit he proved me wrong. His performances and goals return (plus assists and dives for the majority of penalties we won) were excellent post Christmas and without him we'd have been very much a mid table side.

I don't think you can deny that his goal stats etc etc, that Snowball will take much pleasure in repeating for year to come, are boosted somewhat by the 6 or 7 penalties he (expertly) tucked away (that's almost a third of his goals).

[melonhead]

and?!

6 or seven?


"almost" a third

bah!

if you cant get your stats exact im not even going to bother

[Svlad Cjelli]

And, more pertinently, will you take into account the time of contributions and whether they were subs, etc?

A fresh substitute coming on against a tired defence may find it easier to make contributions - but looking at stats as baldly as this gives no credit to the previous striker who may have run that defence ragged for 75 minutes in order to create that tired defence for the fresh sub to take advantage of.

It's a team game, and each individuals performances and opportunities are influenced by so any factors that can't be measured.

No response to this post, Snowball?

[img]lots%20of%20stuff%20in%20150%20point[/img]

Write the response in as big a font as you like, if it doesn't answer the points made it's invalid. You have talked about a different situation, which occurred last season.

What I am saying is who is more valuable to a team - a player who spends 85 minutes a match tiring out a defence or a player who replaces them and then scores against that tired team.

According to your statistics, the former player is worthless and the latter player is invaluable.

I don't think that is defensible - I think football is a team game where the efforts of the team (in tiring out players, in making space, in so many other factors) far outweigh the achievements of the individual, and so in the context of such a team game statistics so focussed on individuals are of no significant value.

This isn't baseball, where there's one pitcher and each batter takes an individual turn, or cricket where there's a similar principle - this is football where what one player is able to achieve is massively dependent upon what the other 10 (and the opponents) are doing at that time and have done throughout the rest of the game.

[Snowball]

If you can't understand simple stuff like

"Long didn't need someone to tire out the opposition for him"

I'm not sure what there is to say.


Hoop comes back, ignores last season's stats when just FOUR of Long's 25-odd goals,
a mere 16% or so were in the last ten minutes, and still talks of when he was super-sub.


Let me use small words.

Shane long last year scored over half of his goals in the first half
Shane long last year scored most (84%) of his goals before the last ten minutes.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE, using Shane's statistics 2010-11, that so-called "battering" was a factor?

Isn't it clearly the case, for Shane Long 2010-11, that he more often scored early goals and NOT late goals?

It's not complicated. It's absolute fact.

You CANNOT (reasonably) argue that last season, the "battering/tiring" theory
applied to Shane Long and his scoring record. It just DIDN'T.


If you look at Kevin Doyle, his stats will look like Shane's.
Plenty of goals earlier in the game.



The reason for this discussion, I presume, is the (laughable) idea that Church batters opponents
and makes it easier for le Fondre, Hunt or Manset when they come on.

It's my opinion that Church is inferior to Le Fondre in every footballing respect, ditto to Hunt
and he is only superior (ATM) to Manset in stamina.

Unlike Long and Hunt, Church ducks physical challenges. Try to think how many times Long had treatment
for a clattering (or gave out a clattering). Now think how often Church has required the trainer.

IMO it's laughable to think that Church wears down defenders

[Svlad Cjelli]

If you can't understand simple stuff like

"Long didn't need someone to tire out the opposition for him"

I'm not sure what there is to say.

Just as using large print doesn't enhance your credibility, resorting to patronising and abuse doesn't either....

What you said was perfectly understandable - just not in the slightest bit relevant to the fact which I am pointing out, which is that your statistics are not a valid way of measuring an individual's goalscoring abilities, because there is no way to take into account all the other factors that affect this.

[cmonurz]

Arguments about what is included and what isn't aside, it's pretty shite that only three players average a single major contribution every 2 games, and two of those the stat is as much a function of the small number of minutes they have played as anything else.

Alf looks like our only good player, based on those stats.

[Snowball]

Next theory?

Perhaps it will be that you use a large font because you're a patronising whingebag.

Good theory. The truth of the large font is complex

I like it.