Team Stats

[cmonurz]

Snowball, can't you see that 'hit woodwork' is only marginally better than 'shot just wide'? And it could easily be argued that if the inclusion of 'hit woodwork' is to capture players involved at the business end of our attacks, then all the more reason to include all efforts on goal. So why not replace hit woodwork with an all encompassing 'shots on target'?

[Snowball]

This. Snowball kinda shot himself in the foot with the whole "MY purposes" and "FOR ME" spiel.

Nope. I'm simply setting out my stall, Day One (well day 2, actually)
and saying `"This is what I wish to do" and justifying my choices.

There are thousands of possible stats, many of them highly subjective.

I'm starting out with these. It's as simple as that.

It's admitting that you can't assign definite values to everything - if Jimmy takes on 8 players, rounds the keeper then lays it back to Hunt for a tap-in from 6 yards they both get the same "reward". Really?

But they SHOULD get the same reward. What matters, ultimately is the goal, the assist or forcing the keeper to make a good save. If Pearce pings a 50 yarder onto Hunt's head for a goal, or Kebe beats 11 players twice before giving the ball to Hunt for a goal, the WORTH, is the same. We have seen how Arsenal can have lots of pretty possession/moves and yet NOT score.

Also, I'd argue that hitting the woodwork was less valuable than getting a shot on target (and certainly not worth half a goal),

I'm not saying it' "worth" half a goal. In strict terms it's worth absolutely NOTHING.

But if Church sees half an opening but fluffs his shot from 15 yards straight at the keeper like a pass-back
that currently goes down as a shot on target. Or Harte/Hunt or whoever beats a man and shoots fro 20 yards.
totally beats the keeper, but hits the woodwork, THAT is technically a shot off target.

For MY purposes, I am taking a shot which beats the keeper but hits the post or bar. as a good shot
(but obviously not good enough!). I'm totting them up simply so, eventually I have a number which is
GOALS + Assists, plus secondary assists, plus hit woodwork. The OS already has On Target/Off Target/HW/Goals

Ideally, it would be nice to downgrade "soft" shots straight at the keeper, but we then get into subjective areas

as there's no way the shot would be heading into the net, no matter how "unlucky" you can say they've been. It goes down as a shot off target.

Actually, for YEARS the OS has distinguished between On Target, Off Target and "Hit Woodwork"

Finally, and most frustratingly, the positive spin on everything as ever - it's good to know that our three main strikers are ahead of the average of a goal every 180 minutes, seeing as none of them have actually played 180 minutes yet, let alone a decent enough amount to extrapolate over. And before you come back in December and try to misquote me saying they wouldn't do it - I hope they do. But you cannot draw any conclusions so early in the campaign. Are Soton and Brighton going to finish on 138 points?

I'm not "drawing any conclusions". As for the extrapolations, they were not actual extrapolations. For one thing, already
these players can't play 46 x 90 as we are down to 44 league games already. Second, as there are three strikers, they
could only all play 44 x 90 if we switched to 4-3-3. I merely made the point that a goal (HRK) in 43 minutes is VVG,
that 2 goals in 91 minutes is VVG, and that Hunt, so far, realising it's a tiny, tiny sample, is ahead of the game, the game being
a goal every 180-210 minutes.

I've simply posted the minutes and goals and mentioned what they currently mean.

As games, minutes and goals accumulate, the figures will become more robust and more meaningful.

I think even I can work out that a sample of two games is a tad small...

[Wimb]

If Snowball wants to keep the stats fine, if he's doing the work it's up to him what he choses to record and how he 'rates' things.

If you don't like them either don't read them or keep some of your own

[Snowball]

Snowball, can't you see that 'hit woodwork' is only marginally better than 'shot just wide'? And it could easily be argued that if the inclusion of 'hit woodwork' is to capture players involved at the business end of our attacks, then all the more reason to include all efforts on goal. So why not replace hit woodwork with an all encompassing 'shots on target'?

Because they are not the same.

MOST shots on target do not beat the keeper. 4 out of 5 are saved

Last season Jobi was 48 ON - 22 OFF - 1 HW for just 4 goals,

IOW his shots on target were crap, only 4 of the 48 becoming goals, 1 in 12 = 8.67%

while Long was 50-46-1, but of his 50 shots on target, 23, almost 50% became goals

(excluding play-offs)

[Snowball]

Stats: A useful indicator, providing you don't set too much stall by them. Useful for throwing out there as a counter point or reinforcement to an opinion.

I'm keeping stats too, like I did last season, not much point mentioning them until we've played 10 games though, same as looking at the league table. Sample is too small otherwise.

Oh, and seeing as we're unlikely to finish the season on 46 points, I presume that Snowball will be arguing that we're better without Shane Long, seeing as we scored one point in one game with him in the team and he contributed nothing to the goals we did score?

Stop being a girlie, Ian.

Besides, using my stats, Shane had a "half" in 90 minutes = 1 in 180 minutes = 23 a season excluding cups


and lo and behold, today he scores v Man Utd. 9 goals to go!

[Mr Angry]

Well done for predicting that Shane Long will score 10 goals this season.

He has scored 54 goals in 208 games; roughly 1 in 4. There are 38 league games plus a few cup games, so he will play roughly 40 games. 1 in 4 average over 40 games is 10 goals.

[Ian Royal]

Stats: A useful indicator, providing you don't set too much stall by them. Useful for throwing out there as a counter point or reinforcement to an opinion.

I'm keeping stats too, like I did last season, not much point mentioning them until we've played 10 games though, same as looking at the league table. Sample is too small otherwise.

Oh, and seeing as we're unlikely to finish the season on 46 points, I presume that Snowball will be arguing that we're better without Shane Long, seeing as we scored one point in one game with him in the team and he contributed nothing to the goals we did score?

Stop being a girlie, Ian.

Besides, using my stats, Shane had a "half" in 90 minutes = 1 in 180 minutes = 23 a season excluding cups


and lo and behold, today he scores v Man Utd. 9 goals to go!

May I remind you that Sigurdsson scored twice in his four League games. Thus getting a goal every 180 minutes and yet you argued we were better off without him. Same argument applies with Long unless you want to be hypocritical I'm afraid. Unless we finish on 46 points or fewer.

[Mr Angry]

For the record, official stats records a shot that hits the woodwork as an off target goal attempt.

Here are some predictions for you:

1. our strikers will score more goals than anyone else in the team
2. our strikers will hit the post more often than anyone else in the team
3. our strikers will win more panalties than anyone else in the team
4. the Pope is of the Catholic faith

But hey, carry on with your stats; if it helps as part of your therapy, I'm all for it.

[Snowball]

For the record, official stats records a shot that hits the woodwork as an off target goal attempt.

Here are some predictions for you:

1. our strikers will score more goals than anyone else in the team
2. our strikers will hit the post more often than anyone else in the team
3. our strikers will win more panalties than anyone else in the team
4. the Pope is of the Catholic faith

But hey, carry on with your stats; if it helps as part of your therapy, I'm all for it.

Here is the OS for 2010-11, argue with them.

57 ON 46 OFF 1 HW Shane Long
48 ON 22 OFF 1 HW Jobi McAnuff
31 ON 27 OFF 2 HW Jimmy Kebe
33 20 1 HW Noel Hunt

[Snowball]

[

May I remind you that Sigurdsson scored twice in his four League games. Thus getting a goal every 180 minutes and yet you argued we were better off without him. Same argument applies with Long unless you want to be hypocritical I'm afraid. Unless we finish on 46 points or fewer.

We were better off without Gylfi because his transfer money
allowed us to strengthen the defence, (vital) improve the midfield
and extend some contracts (including Shane's, thus earning us perhaps 6-7 Million)

We lost a brilliant PLAYER but became a better TEAM. IMO Gylfi wasn't a great TEAM player

He was a brilliant ball-player but poor defensively and could "disappear" in games.



Shane gets goals, makes goals, works very well defensively, harries defenders etc etc etc.

He is a great individual AND a great team player.

He will be hard to replace, but everyone CAN BE replaced


However, there would be absolutely NOTHING hypocritical in saying we were better off without Gylfi
but are not better off without Shane. They are two different things.



I am not saying we are or are not "better off" without Shane but he had to move onwards and upwards
and now there is room for one or more from HRK-Manset-Church et al to fill his shoes

[Snowball]

Well done for predicting that Shane Long will score 10 goals this season.

He has scored 54 goals in 208 games; roughly 1 in 4. There are 38 league games plus a few cup games, so he will play roughly 40 games. 1 in 4 average over 40 games is 10 goals.

For God's sake, engage your brain, Mr. A.

Don't talk "appearances", talk minutes. He played about 80 minutes for WBA today.

In that single game he played almost sixth of the minutes he played in a whole SEASON (his first for RFC)


Why puke out stupid, pointless stats about his 2/3/4/5 minute sub appearances at age 18?

Why not use last season's (surely more relevant as they are more recent) 51 (1) 25 goals, almost a goal every 2 games.

[Snowball]

Well done for predicting that Shane Long will score 10 goals this season.

He has scored 54 goals in 208 games; roughly 1 in 4. There are 38 league games plus a few cup games, so he will play roughly 40 games. 1 in 4 average over 40 games is 10 goals.

Point One.

I made that prediction THREE YEARS AGO on this list,
saying he would get 20+ Championship goals and/or 10+ Premiership Goals.

And I was ridiculed for it.


Remind me, who was right?


Point Two

Except that his goals were in: (by season)

A side scoring 106 points
A side finishing 8th in the Prem
A side finishing 4th in the Championship
A side roaring up the table from the relegation places to 7-8-9th (Championship)
A side finishing 5th in the Championship and getting to Wembley

Just one poor season, the relegation one.

Now he has to play in (at best) a mid-table side who are almost certain never to be far away
from the relegation places, and he is going to have to breach Premiership defences.

[urz13]

So has anyone actually responded positively to this and welcomed Snowball's effort, or is it just for him and no one else cares, in which case there's no need for him to waste his time posting it up in future.

Personally I think some of the "shambles" shouts are a bit harsh. You simply can't cover everything with stats.

I, for one, value the effort this must take and even if it is by no means perfect it is still an interesting and insightful feature IMO.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

shame that you cannot set an entire thread to Ignore really, stataway SB but do expect to get slated from time to time.

[Snowball]

shame that you cannot set an entire thread to Ignore really, stataway SB but do expect to get slated from time to time.

Slated by a (mostly) bunch of muppets?

I wouldn't have it any other way.

The idea that I could be in sync with the average poster here fills me with horror.





When in doubt, I simply remember, "They slated me over Shane Long for more than two years."

[Snowball]

Hal's Stats, the four main strikers

0,042 Minutes 1 Goals 2011-12 Age 22
1,486 Minutes 6 Goals 2010-11 Age 20-21
0,616 Minutes 0 Goals 2009-10 Age 19-20

2,666 Minutes 6 Goals 2008-09 Age 18-19 (Swindon)
0,324 Minutes 3 Goals 2007-08 Age 17-18 (Orient)


Hal is barely 22 (same as Manset who is three months younger) so they both have
a lot of improvement in them.

Most of Hal's 2,144 minutes have been on the wing, so it's unfair to expect
a striker's goals-per-minute. Nevertheless he is a goal every 306 minutes
for RFC and had managed 9 goals on loan while 17-19 years old.

More significantly, in 2010-11 and 2011-12 he is averaging a goal every 218 minutes,
or one every 2.42 games, very good for a winger, very good for a youngster. With
any progress at all he should be 1 in 2 in the not-too-distant future

From here on in I shall just take his data from 2010-11 onwards and keep that
updated alongside Manset-Hunt-Church for the same time-period

0,589 Minutes 04 Goals = a goal every 141 minutes (1.63 games) Manset
1,528 Minutes 07 Goals = a goal every 218 minutes (2.42 games) HRK
2,565 Minutes 11 Goals = a goal every 233 minutes (2.60 games) Hunt
1,722 Minutes 04 Goals = a goal every 433 minutes (4.78 games) Church

To date that shows Manset with a hit-rate almost exactly three times as good as Church (for 2010-12)

[cmonurz]

Slated by a (mostly) bunch of muppets?

I wouldn't have it any other way.

The idea that I could be in sync with the average poster here fills me with horror.





When in doubt, I simply remember, "They slated me over Shane Long for more than two years."

And this is why you get short shrift on here. The debate on this board is generally 'adult', it doesn't need to be polite to be constructive, but it's clear that your OP was little more than a 'look at me, read my stats then fcuk off' post.

If you don't want your methods questioned, why post them up?

Your rude response above, and putting down the majority of users of the board, marks you out as a poster to avoid.

[Snowball]

Slated by a (mostly) bunch of muppets?

I wouldn't have it any other way.

The idea that I could be in sync with the average poster here fills me with horror.





When in doubt, I simply remember, "They slated me over Shane Long for more than two years."

And this is why you get short shrift on here. The debate on this board is generally 'adult', it doesn't need to be polite to be constructive, but it's clear that your OP was little more than a 'look at me, read my stats then fcuk off' post.

If you don't want your methods questioned, why post them up?

Your rude response above, and putting down the majority of users of the board, marks you out as a poster to avoid.

I meant every word of what I said. There are maybe a dozen people worth reading on this list
and the rest are knee-jerking morons.

Rude response? You need to go back and read the vitriol I received FROM THE OUTSET
for "daring" to say Shane Long would be a top player. This is a nasty, mostly pessimistic,
stupidly subjective, often blind list (posters-wise) peopled in the main with (posters-wise)
utter jerks.

If you think the "debate" on the boards is "generally adult" I suggest you get out more.

[brendywendy]

and not just shlong snowball
theres a long list of players who have been slated on here, who have recieved your statistical support and then turned into footballing gnii.

keep up the good work

[Snowball]

but it's clear that your OP was little more than a 'look at me, read my stats then fcuk off' post.

If you don't want your methods questioned, why post them up?

Or, alternatively, it was an attempt to "corrall" the bulk of stats, to set up a simple
resource that was mostly opinion-free, for those who wished to partake, to do so
quietly, for those who didn't to ignore.

But, as usual, you and your ilk, doing nothing yourselves, feel the urgent
need to complain.