TCCANARY 263 Posted January 26, 2016 [quote user="westcoastcanary"]The betting industry LOVE stats because the "headline" stats with which we are bombarded (by said betting sites and also journalists looking for ways of filling column inches without having to use their brains) encourage people to bet. Would the bookies be so keen to publish all those stats if they thought it was putting a valuable resource in the punters'' hands? Of course not. But that has very little to do with stats-based football analytics, as important a resource for any top-level club today as its training or medical facilities. It''s a great shame if the negativity towards stats which seems to pervade this board really does represent peoples'' views. Maybe they just don''t understand what it''s all about? [/quote] Or maybe they do and that''s the issue, so far no-one has explained why the stats quoted in the OP are particularly significant, if you just pluck a couple of metrics out of a lot of data and use that to make a point then the point is flawed.Most of the time these snippets of information are used to make a negative point and that''s the issue, I''ve never seen anyone produce these stats after we win a game.Leave the analysis to the guys who get paid for it, they have a much better grasp of what the data means. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westcoastcanary 173 Posted January 27, 2016 First point taken in the case of some posters, but not as a blanket defence of the pervading negativity towards stats. The stats about distance covered and tackles made are what they are. If someone chooses to base a negative point on them, the answer is not to rubbish stats but to challenge the conclusions being drawn from them. Why stifle what could be an interesting and illuminating discussion by sneering and sniping every bit as bad as the negative sniping you complain about? And why should we leave analysis to the guys who get paid for it? Yes they have have much more info available to them and a much better grasp of what the data means, but why shouldn''t we at least try to raise the quality of debate about what we fans watch on the pitch? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Budapest Canary 152 Posted January 27, 2016 [quote user="lowlyfendweller"]So these ststs suggest that we''re one of the worst teams in the league? Funny that, they read like we''re a promoted team battling for survival!Though I must say, I wish we would get a foot in more at times. Too much "sheparding" from some defenders!! Difficult to judge for our players though, If we did we tackle more we might end up with too many bookings instead!![/quote]I think you solved the Great Gary O''Neil Tackle Mystery. He wanted to improve our tackling statistics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwindonCanary 455 Posted January 27, 2016 THIS is a good read on stats Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TCCANARY 263 Posted January 27, 2016 [quote user="westcoastcanary"]First point taken in the case of some posters, but not as a blanket defence of the pervading negativity towards stats. The stats about distance covered and tackles made are what they are. If someone chooses to base a negative point on them, the answer is not to rubbish stats but to challenge the conclusions being drawn from them. Why stifle what could be an interesting and illuminating discussion by sneering and sniping every bit as bad as the negative sniping you complain about? And why should we leave analysis to the guys who get paid for it? Yes they have have much more info available to them and a much better grasp of what the data means, but why shouldn''t we at least try to raise the quality of debate about what we fans watch on the pitch? [/quote] I''ll look forward to the "interesting and illuminating discussion" that the stats generate after our next win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
