The Snowball stat thread

[The Real Sandhurst Royal]

Not in the 1st Half.

[leicsRoyal]

Not in the 1st Half.

Uh Oh........

Cue the ratio of first half minutes played to goals scored!

[floyd__streete]

I don't need a load of stats to reinforce my opinion that the current crop of strikers - Roberts excepted - are a bunch of medicore plodders. But thanks anyway.

[RoyalChicagoFC]

Interestingly*, we've not had the best form (in Pts or PpG) in any calendar month this season:

http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/teams/Reading.html

A foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of upper mid-table also-rans, mm hmm

[Snowball]

Here are the strike pairings plus whether or not a striker scored
then what the result was.

In a few cases where the strike pair was changed I've added that

eg Church-Alf for 68 minutes then Hunt-Alf for 22

I HAVEN'T balanced it out for time, but eyeballing it, they even out fairly well

So first two lines... Hunt-Long failed to score, Long-Manset got 2 (Manset subbed on) we drew 2-2

Hunt Long 0 D Millwall
Long Manset 2 D Millwall

Hunt Manset 1 W Leicester
Hunt Manset 0 L Portsmouth
Hunt HRK 1 L Barnsley Missed 2 Pens
Hunt HRK 0 L Hull
Manset Alf 0 L Watford

Church Hunt 0 W Donny
Church Alf 2 W Donny

Church Alf 1 D Coventry

Church Alf 1 W Bristol
Manset Alf 1 W Bristol

Church Alf 0 D Boro
Church Alf 0 W Burnley
Church Alf 2 D Derby
Church Alf 0 D Saints
Church Alf 0 D Palace
Manset Alf 0 L Forest

Church Alf 0 W Brum
Hunt Alf 1 W Brum

Hunt Alf 0 L Cardiff

Church Alf 0 W Ipswich
Hunt Alf 1 W Ipswich

Church Hunt 1 W Peterboro
Hunt Alf 1 W Peterboro

Church Alf 0 L Blackpool Good Church goal disallowed

Hunt Alf 0 W West Ham
Church Alf 2 W West Ham

Church Alf 1 W Leeds
Church Alf 0 W Brighton
Church Alf 0 W Ipswich

Church Alf 0 L Cardiff
Hunt Alf 0 L Cardiff

Hunt Church 0 W Watford
Hunt Alf 1 W Watford

Hunt Church 0 L Hull
Hunt Alf 0 L Hull
Roberts Hunt 1 W Bristol

[Maguire]

I don't need a load of stats to reinforce my opinion that the current crop of strikers - Roberts excepted - are a bunch of medicore plodders. But thanks anyway.

I think the "4 goals, 3 goals, 2 goals, 1 goal, 0 goals, 1 goal" bit illustrates that quite well.

With such small numbers all it takes is one shinner to change someone's stats significantly

[Wimb]

I don't need a load of stats to reinforce my opinion that the current crop of strikers - Roberts excepted - are a bunch of medicore plodders. But thanks anyway.

I think the "4 goals, 3 goals, 2 goals, 1 goal, 0 goals, 1 goal" bit illustrates that quite well.

With such small numbers all it takes is one shinner to change someone's stats significantly

I was going to post a retort to Snowball's stats but this sums it up far better and far more poignantly.

[Snowball]

Church Alf P16 W9 D5 9 Goals between them (plus good Church Goal disallowed at Blackpool)
Church-Hunt P4 W3 L1 1 Goal

Hunt-Alf P8 W5 L3 4 Goals
Hunt-HRK P2 L2 1 Goal (but missed two pens)
Hunt-Roberts P1 W1 1 Goal


Manset Alf P3 W1 L2 1 Goal

Long-Manset P1 D1 2 Goals

Long-Hunt P1 D1

[Snowball]

Snowball chooses that sample size because it produces the results that best illustrate his point. No other reason

Well that would make him really unique, wouldn't it I wonder if the Labour Party will ever latch onto this scam

I don't agree with everything Snowball posts but some of the sh*t he takes on here beggars belief and often comes from those who should have the brains to know better.

Unlike the vast majority of posters, myself included, he invariably backs up his views with stats. You may not like them, they may not be perfect but, nevertheless, it's a damn site more than most of us provide.

In this instance, the point he makes is both obvious and very relevant but clearly doesn't sit well with the doommongers.

In Long and Mills we lost 2 major players last summer and this was a major factor in yet another slow start to the campaign. As Snowballs stats clearly show, since getting our act together with the usual rebuilding and new players bedding in, few teams have been in better form than us....................and there is nothing wrong with using our last 22? games to illustrate this point.

But Winchester is categorically WRONG in that statement

"Snowball chooses that sample size because it produces the results that best illustrate his point. No other reason."

That right, huh?

So there won't be a better-looking sample size,
say 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 Games?



The Latest 22 Games: Points-per-Game 1.86 ppg - Position 2nd. (Sample size actually used)


BUT

The Latest 14 Games: Points-per-Game 1.91 ppg - BETTER
The Latest 13 Games: Points-per-Game 2.08 ppg - Position TOP. EVEN BETTER THAN THAT
The Latest 12 Games: Points-per-Game 2.00 ppg - Position TOP.

The Latest 11 Games: Points-per-Game 2.18 ppg - Position TOP.
The Latest 10 Games: Points-per-Game 2.10 ppg - Position TOP.
The Latest 09 Games: Points-per-Game 2.00 Position Joint Second

The Latest 08 Games: Points-per-Game 2.25 ppg - Position TOP by a massive quarter point, +11 points in a season.

The Latest 07 Games: Points-per-Game 2.14 ppg - Position TOP.
The Latest 06 Games: Points-per-Game 2.00 ppg

That is NINE sample sizes that show Reading FC in a better light than my 22 Game sample. Just NINE.

I know that's not many and it's really easy to miss NINE occurrences,
especially if you are blind and determined to stay blind...

[Snowball]

If he was able to write with even a slight acknowledgement of the fact that he may be wrong, and views
other than his own are worthy of some consideration, then he would be a whole lot more popular on this board.

But I'm NOT wrong.

YOU were wrong tho, still are wrong for saying I've chosen the stats that make RFC look best

[Snowball]

And I turned out to be right.

My point is proven.

You just can't help yourself. That sort of comment is what I would expect from a teenager. And for the record, most were criticising you for your approach to using statisics, not your opinion on Shane (there are exceptions to that, hence the word most).

No most had DECIDED Shane was shit and NOTHING
was going to show them otherwise

Funny how the stats proved me right tho. Maybe I got lucky?

[Snowball]

Go back and read the first Shane thread where it felt at times
like me against the whole of Hob Nob

And I turned out to be right.

Long proved his critics wrong by turning round his fortunes.

You're defence of him because of his stats wasn't a case of being right, even if the outcome of Longs contribution to our success was. I still take issue with you're claiming to be so right about the number of goals he could score etc etc (it's not like you don't bring it up every other day!). Take out the penalties and his return is a lot more average (although I'm not saying they weren't an important part of his and our success, just that a lot of the criticism on here was that he wasn't scoring enough goals from open play).

Sorry Hoop. There's me thinking scoring a penalty counted as a goal

Did I EVER say "Goals not including penalties"

I said Shane will be a 20-goal striker in the Championship and he got 27 Goals.

Close enough, wouldn't you say?

as for the open play rubbish.

I used stats to show open play goals had never been a problem
and argued that he would return to scoring goals in open play

He did. And that's why he is in the Premiership, as I said he would be.

[Snowball]

I don't feel the need to prove anything to you. It seems part of your problem is that unless you can quantify it by good or poor statistical means then an opinion is worthless.

Not at all. You could cite a dozen instances where Church this season had been given a chance Alf would score from but didn't.

You HAVEN'T

In fact you haven't given a single piece of evidence to support your case

Personally I can accept that you don't agree that Church is wastful of more chances than the rest of our forwards.
I'm happy to have a conversation about it, and back it up with evidence where I have it, but in this case I don't. Nor do you.
A debate doesn't need to be a statiscal analysis.

No, but you can't just state something is true contrary to know evidence
without giving any justification whatsoever.

Here is my justification for saying you are wrong in rough order of weight.

Of the main strikers excluding Roberts who hasn't yet played 90 minutes)


01. Church is joint top-scorer.
02. Church is solo top-scorer on minutes per goal.
03. Church is the best on minutes per goal when starting.
04. Church is best on minutes per goal when coming on as a sub
05. Church has started in 10 of our 13 wins, and scored twice in the 11th game.
06. For most of the season Church was the only RFC player who could score in the first half.
07. Church-Alf turns out to be the highest-scoring partnership this season.
08. Brian McDermott picked Church.
09. Brendan Rodgers rated Church
10. Brian McDermott has publicly praised Church
11. Church had a very, very good season two seasons ago, scoring 12, aged 21, at a goal every 180 minutes.
12. Church has the knack of stealing goals.
13. Church scored against Liverpool
14. Though I don't consider Church brave, I can't recall any/many instances this season of him failing to get his shot off.
15. There are very, very few mentions on the OS of him being crowded out.

that is versus

Hoop, "It's not so!"

[winchester_royal]

If he was able to write with even a slight acknowledgement of the fact that he may be wrong, and views
other than his own are worthy of some consideration, then he would be a whole lot more popular on this board.

But I'm NOT wrong.

YOU were wrong tho, still are wrong for saying I've chosen the stats that make RFC look best

Oh dear God, you are wrong sometimes, everyone is.

And yeah fair enough I was wrong on that particular point. Although I didn't mean it quite as literally as you decided to take it.

[Wycombe Royal]

And I turned out to be right.

My point is proven.

You just can't help yourself. That sort of comment is what I would expect from a teenager. And for the record, most were criticising you for your approach to using statisics, not your opinion on Shane (there are exceptions to that, hence the word most).

No most had DECIDED Shane was shit and NOTHING
was going to show them otherwise

Funny how the stats proved me right tho. Maybe I got lucky?

You just don't get it, I can't be bothered to waste any more bandwidth in trying to get you to see the wider issue. Cue large font:

YOU ARE A LOST CAUSE

[Snowball]

And yeah fair enough I was wrong on that particular point. Although I didn't mean it quite as literally as you decided to take it.

Of course not.

You weren't inferring I deliberately distorted the stats were you? Nah.


So shall we use the stat that shows us on 2.25 ppg or stick with the one I said 9 weeks ago
I'd use for the season?

[Hoop Blah]

No, but you can't just state something is true contrary to know evidence
without giving any justification whatsoever.

Here is my justification for saying you are wrong in rough order of weight.

Of the main strikers excluding Roberts who hasn't yet played 90 minutes)

01. Church is joint top-scorer.
02. Church is solo top-scorer on minutes per goal.
03. Church is the best on minutes per goal when starting.
04. Church is best on minutes per goal when coming on as a sub
05. Church has started in 10 of our 13 wins, and scored twice in the 11th game.
06. For most of the season Church was the only RFC player who could score in the first half.
07. Church-Alf turns out to be the highest-scoring partnership this season.
08. Brian McDermott picked Church.
09. Brendan Rodgers rated Church
10. Brian McDermott has publicly praised Church
11. Church had a very, very good season two seasons ago, scoring 12, aged 21, at a goal every 180 minutes.
12. Church has the knack of stealing goals.
13. Church scored against Liverpool
14. Though I don't consider Church brave, I can't recall any/many instances this season of him failing to get his shot off.
15. There are very, very few mentions on the OS of him being crowded out.

that is versus

Hoop, "It's not so!"

None of that actually disproves my comment that he fails to make the most of opportunities more than the rest of our other options up front.

As I've said, I don't catalogue incidents over a season so that I can throw them into a debate on here to back up my point. I struggle to remember results and goals let alone the opportunities we don't take.

What I do do is to form an opinion as I watch a player and/or team. I've a reasonable amount of experience watching football and discuss a lot of what I see unfolding infront of me with the mates I watch games with. Those discussions and my opinions changing with the more I watch are what I talk about on here. I'm not infalable and will get the occassional observation wrong I'm sure, but I sure as hell don't feel the need to quantify every opinion to the n'th degree to prove why I've formed a specific opinion. I will try to back up any statement I make with some form of justification (and examples if I have them) but it's by no means something I feel the need to list out endlessly in order to prove my point.

[Hoop Blah]

Go back and read the first Shane thread where it felt at times
like me against the whole of Hob Nob

And I turned out to be right.

Long proved his critics wrong by turning round his fortunes.

You're defence of him because of his stats wasn't a case of being right, even if the outcome of Longs contribution to our success was. I still take issue with you're claiming to be so right about the number of goals he could score etc etc (it's not like you don't bring it up every other day!). Take out the penalties and his return is a lot more average (although I'm not saying they weren't an important part of his and our success, just that a lot of the criticism on here was that he wasn't scoring enough goals from open play).

Sorry Hoop. There's me thinking scoring a penalty counted as a goal

Did I EVER say "Goals not including penalties"

I said Shane will be a 20-goal striker in the Championship and he got 27 Goals.

Close enough, wouldn't you say?

as for the open play rubbish.

I used stats to show open play goals had never been a problem
and argued that he would return to scoring goals in open play

He did. And that's why he is in the Premiership, as I said he would be.

The general discussion was how he wasn't scoring enough goals from open play and that we needed more goal threat at the time because we weren't winning games we should. Long was probably the most culpable at the time and looked quite a way short of having the quality about him to flourish in the way he did.

The stats showed that he could come good. Most of the debate at the time was then about how those stats weren't conclusive or in many ways relevant to the criticism he was faced with.

As ever you pretty much failed to comprehend the point that was being made. As it turned out the team evolved to concentrate on the strengths Long had and he himself made the most of the talents he has. He was awesome for a number of months and we almost became a one man attacking unit and as a result he score a lot of goals, and a lot of those were from penalties (which do count but don't really reflect a players quality which was the topic of the debate).

[winchester_royal]

And yeah fair enough I was wrong on that particular point. Although I didn't mean it quite as literally as you decided to take it.

Of course not.

You weren't inferring I deliberately distorted the stats were you? Nah.


So shall we use the stat that shows us on 2.25 ppg or stick with the one I said 9 weeks ago
I'd use for the season?

I'm going to follow Wycombe's lead and leave this particular thread in a drove.

You are beyond help.

[Ian Royal]

It's amazing that that one person can manage to pick a fight with so many of the posters that are the least aggressive, most reasonable and most interested in engaging in a genuine debate on here.

I do not include myself in that list by the way. I suffer far too much from a lack of patience, short temper and general enjoyment for hurling around hyperbole and insults. I also feel once again I should offer an apology to the board for helping to create the monster which is snowball by being such an unnecessary shit to him when he first signed up. Though now the monster born from it deserves everything he gets, given his carry on since.