The Snowball stat thread

[cmonurz]

Every Snowball thread ends up at the bottom of the same pit of despair and pointlessness.

There's one, consistent, reason for that, which is that for all the discussion as to what the stats show, Snowball steadfastly refuses to accept that his statistical approach to an issue might be wrong.

Take the last few pages as an example - as far as Snowball is concerned, the only relevant stat for use in this discussion is the % of penalties scored in the Championship over a given period. Anyone talking of other numbers is given short shrift. Now I'm not debating the merits of any of the stats - but they all have merit and Snowball's utter refusal to accept that follows the same pattern as his other 'discussions'.

Might as well reveal that after my little 'spat' with Snowball some weeks ago I PMed him to try to clear the air and explain my points of view. Whilst he was courteous enough to accept them, he also told me that he wouldn't be so confrontational towards me if I was more conciliatory and 'careful' in my disagreements. It's Snowball's way or no way.

Anyway, carry on.

[Snowball]

It's merely a number chosen with some logic behind it.

Not it is subjective, and the logic is just Snowball logic.

You are just moaning for moaning's sake. Not getting enough sex?

[Snowball]

If you don't like my weightings

(a) Do your own

(b) Don't read them

(c) Suggest improvements

(d) Just moan and moan and moan and moan and moan

[Wycombe Royal]

Major contributions include assists, and those are OFFICIALLY listed. And there have been A FEW, each one detailed on the board, about four so far in 32 games (wowsers) where a brilliant cross wasn't "technically" an assist but I felt it worth acknowledging

So if major contributions include assists why do assists get 5 points and MC's get 3 points? So do they actually get 8 points for an assist?

More Snowball logic?

[Wycombe Royal]

Stats are there to be critiqued. If you don't like it, ignore it.

[RobRoyal]

What is subjective is the weighting you give each stat in terms of points.

That's not "subjective" (as in non-objective).

It's merely a number chosen with some logic behind it.

We award the player scoring a goal 5 points, and an assister 5 points
(normally then just two players who might be strikers, midfielders
or defenders.)

But we award ALL the five defenders 5 points for a clean sheet, the two DMs 4 points for a clean sheet

That seems balanced and objective to me, and I had no idea how the stats would total up.

Elwood is lower partly because he (a) had six terrible games, then six ordinary ones, (b) was
injured for some blank sheets so didn't get thiose bonuses and has just one goal, one assist

There is nothing objective about saying that a solo goal is worth twice as much as a single defender keeping a clean sheet. There's nothing objective in saying that the person who created the goal has contributed the same as the person who scored it.

[Snowball]

Yup, rubber-neckers are pretty dumb people without lives.


Oh, Hi!

wow... was defending you tbf but if you're going to take that attitude

OIC

"This thread is like when you see an accident on the motorway...
you don't want to look at it as it's just horrible but yet you can't help but look in on it"

is defending me.


Which bit exactly?

[Snowball]

The saddest thing about all this is that Snowball thinks he is being clever and proving his point whilst revelling, in what he thinks is, defeating his enemies.

When in actual fact all he is doing is making himself look a bigger and bigger tit.

Nope. I just hate bullies, idiots and hypocrites

and absolutely frankly, there is not a person who so-engages me
of whom I care a jot when considering their opinion of me.

[Wycombe Royal]

The saddest thing about all this is that Snowball thinks he is being clever and proving his point whilst revelling, in what he thinks is, defeating his enemies.

When in actual fact all he is doing is making himself look a bigger and bigger tit.

Nope. I just hate bullies, idiots and hypocrites

You hate yourself then?

[Snowball]

Every Snowball thread ends up at the bottom of the same pit of despair and pointlessness.
There's one, consistent, reason for that, which is that for all the discussion as to what the stats show, Snowball steadfastly refuses to accept that his statistical approach to an issue might be wrong.
Take the last few pages as an example - as far as Snowball is concerned, the only relevant stat for use in this discussion is the % of penalties scored in the Championship over a given period. Anyone talking of other numbers is given short shrift. Now I'm not debating the merits of any of the stats - but they all have merit and Snowball's utter refusal to accept that follows the same pattern as his other 'discussions'.
Might as well reveal that after my little 'spat' with Snowball some weeks ago I PMed him to try to clear the air and explain my points of view. Whilst he was courteous enough to accept them, he also told me that he wouldn't be so confrontational towards me if I was more conciliatory and 'careful' in my disagreements. It's Snowball's way or no way.

Anyway, carry on.

How can any normal human being argue that stats for Premiership penalties
have relevance for penalties taken in the Championship?

There is a simple reason that Ian RunandDuck and various cronies poo-hooed
the Championship stats. BECAUSE THEY SUPPORTED MY STATEMENT.


Anyone who says there is something wrong with 5.7 consecutive and most-recent season's
worth of stats on penalties all of them including the league we play in, the teams we play,
and our own penalties, is plain DAFT, and avoiding the truth.

[Snowball]

oxf*rd Hell, Wyc, I bet you couldn't wait to post that.

Did you poke your tongue out too?

[Snowball]

Major contributions include assists, and those are OFFICIALLY listed. And there have been A FEW, each one detailed on the board, about four so far in 32 games (wowsers) where a brilliant cross wasn't "technically" an assist but I felt it worth acknowledging

So if major contributions include assists why do assists get 5 points and MC's get 3 points? So do they actually get 8 points for an assist?

More Snowball logic?

No more Wycombe obtuseness. Do you understand English.

Did you note I DIDN'T say "All MCs get 5 points."?



All assists are MCs.

Not all MCs are assists.

I will use small words. Harte cross brill. Kebe header brill. Church touches ball over line

5 Church Goal
5 Kebe Assist
3 Harte Cross

[Snowball]

Stats are there to be critiqued. If you don't like it, ignore it.

oxf*rd Off, you're not CRITIQUING, you're complaining for the sake of it (as usual)

Critiquing? Nope. Permanent Negativity.

Critiquing involves being constructive, discussing possible improvements etc.

eg Why not give DM 5 points for a clean sheet?

or why not give defenders 7 for a clean sheet, DMs 5, wingers 2?

[Wimb]

Yup, rubber-neckers are pretty dumb people without lives.


Oh, Hi!

wow... was defending you tbf but if you're going to take that attitude

OIC

"This thread is like when you see an accident on the motorway...
you don't want to look at it as it's just horrible but yet you can't help but look in on it"

is defending me.


Which bit exactly?

The bit a few pages ago when I said it was all getting a bit personal. Hence my inference was that the constant sniping was getting a bit car crash like, turning an honest (if not flawed) statistical analysis into a debate on autism and what degrees you may or may not have/need.

Still, if you feel the need to jump up and come up with a snotty pathetic little retort like that then you're on your own.

[Snowball]

There is nothing objective about saying that a solo goal is worth twice as much as a single defender keeping a clean sheet. There's nothing objective in saying that the person who created the goal has contributed the same as the person who scored it.

I guess it depends on what you mean by objective and subjective.

Subjective, to me, is raving about a goal and awarded it greater worth because it's spectacular.

Here I awarded points, points that seemed REASONABLE.
And then, NOT KNOWING how these would pan out I plugged them in.

Subjectivity, opinion, only occasionally rears its head, like arguing over whether one particular
cross-field ball was special, a game-winner (once) or awarding Harte points for two superb
crosses which resulted in goals even though his wasn't the penultimate touch.


5 for a clean sheet. 5 for a goal. 5 for an assist. If a player in open play does something truly
extra and makes a goal out of nothing, IMO, this one time, he's got the 5 for goal and five
for scoring with out the assist. Which reminds me I owe McAnuff 5 points...

You might argue that defenders/DMs should get X points for Clean Sheets, fewer for conceding 1 goal
and nothing for conceding 2+, dunno. These things are always in flux. So?

[Snowball]

There is nothing objective about saying that a solo goal is worth twice as much as a single defender keeping a clean sheet.
There's nothing objective in saying that the person who created the goal has contributed the same as the person who scored it.


They are arbitrary numbers. There is no way to scientifically quantify what the numbers should be

But you miss the point(s). That solo goal, one piece of magic, ears ONE player 10 points
but the defence and DMs earn 33 Points for a clean sheet and the wingers 1 each, totaling 35 points

And where a defender does something special "above and beyond" he can get 5 too.

That would be something like Mee for Burnley, Mills fantastic goal-line clearance at Leicester last year
or the two "special" saves 1 on 1 made by Feds.

So every defender can earn 10 per game, and note that Connolly is in second-place as he has yet to concede a goal and has an assist

[Wycombe Royal]

Stats are there to be critiqued. If you don't like it, ignore it.

oxf*rd Off, you're not CRITIQUING, you're complaining for the sake of it (as usual)

Critiquing? Nope. Permanent Negativity.

Critiquing involves being constructive, discussing possible improvements etc.

eg Why not give DM 5 points for a clean sheet?

or why not give defenders 7 for a clean sheet, DMs 5, wingers 2?

Here is a definition of critique (or critiquing) from an online dictionary:

cri·tique   /krɪˈtik/ Show Spelled [kri-teek] Show IPA noun, verb, -tiqued, -ti·quing.
noun
1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.
2. a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.
3. the art or practice of criticism.


Notice the word "criticism". It doesn't have to be constructive. Ofcourse we all know that you are right and that definition is worng....it goes without saying of course.

[Snowball]

Thanks, Wim


I'm used to it.

[Snowball]

Here is a definition of critique (or critiquing) from an online dictionary:

cri·tique   /krɪˈtik/ Show Spelled [kri-teek] Show IPA noun, verb, -tiqued, -ti·quing.
noun
1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.
2. a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.
3. the art or practice of criticism.


Notice the word "criticism". It doesn't have to be constructive. Ofcourse we all know that you are right and that definition is worng....it goes without saying of course.

I should have realised you couldn't actually apply a brain to the matter at hand.

Why precisely do you, and others simply wish to destroy threads?

What you do is come in, toss a few bombs, impugn my sanity, mental state, suggest autism
or some psychosis or borderline personality disorder, sexuality probably, and assert that I lie (something I strain to avoid in my life)


But what you never try to do is BUILD, to make things better.


You don't have to like my stats, you don't have to read them. You can comment, of course, BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE and it never has been what happens.

It's group-bullying and it has mostly, the usual suspects (eg Ian Royal is due in the next hour)

The bash-for-a-while-and-then-get-bored brigade is then followed by the moronic
"I'll post a picture because my brain is very small" crowd, and then Ian Runaway
can add his smilies and say to somebody, "We should have a pint some time..."


None of this would matter but what's sad is that stats that some find interesting are forever
associated with bile going both ways, masses of pointless, useless argument.

And never ONCE do you try and build something better

[Snowball]

Define nervousness (and try doing it without Google)


But that's not the point. You ALSO impugned me by saying
that I was unable to imagine anything that couldn't be statistically written down.

That's utter BS.



I use stats to OVERCOME my useless, wayward, oft-wrong gut-feel.


How many months and years before Shane came good did I say the stats say he will be a very good player?

How many months before you lot did I say last season we would make the POs and why.

How many weeks/months have I been making the point about this run
until eventually the club took it up and it made the match programme?