John Ruddy shot v save ratio

[Mr Angry 1,555]

City1st, is that any worse than people people pulling themselves silly trying to belittle others?

[River End Canary 0]

[quote user="Mr Angry"]City1st, is that any worse than people people pulling themselves silly trying to belittle others?[/quote]

The stats prove I have a valid point I have yet to see City1st string a coherent argument on anything in his 10k plus posts!

[River End Canary 0]

[quote user="Mr Angry"]City1st, is that any worse than people people pulling themselves silly trying to belittle others?[/quote]

The stats prove I have a valid point I have yet to see City1st string a coherent argument on anything in his 10k plus posts!

[Maccys Back 0]

Is that the infamous "post envy syndrome" C.I

[Paul Spector 0]

Back on topic...

Stats do seem to suggest that JR has conceded a worryingly high percentage of goals in relation to the shots he has faced.

That said, I can''t think of too many absolute howlers.

I don''t think shot stopping has ever been JR''s biggest strength - personally I feel Mark Bunn is clearly better in this category.

Where JR makes up for this is in the way he commands his area/comes from crosses etc. Bunn is severely limited by his size - which I think is the only thing that has stopped him becoming a really top keeper. Unfortunately it is something he has no control over.

All things considered, I would rather have Ruddy in goal than any other keeper in the division.

[Bill 1,788]

"The stats prove I have a valid point I have yet to see City1st string a coherent argument on anything in his 10k plus posts!"

I have yet to see anyone else who has bothered to read them all

even me

ps windy on the east coast tonight is it ?

[Yellow Wal 314]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

Statistics are in the eyes of the compiler

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

Statistics are in the eyes of the compiler[/quote]

and the terminally dim

[Monty13 2,231]

"for there to be ANY meaningful comparison to be drawn all shots would have to be from an equal distance, equal angle, equal force, equal direction and Ruddy would have to be standing in the same place as all other keepers being compare"

For there to be ANY meaningful comparison, that would have to be the case? What absolute nonsense. The problem is the sample size is too small, not that they all have to be saving the exact same shots.

[splutcho 173]

" Ruddy would have to be standing in the same place as all other keepers being compare"

That would be called positioning. Part of being a keeper...

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Monty13"]"for there to be ANY meaningful comparison to be drawn all shots would have to be from an equal distance, equal angle, equal force, equal direction and Ruddy would have to be standing in the same place as all other keepers being compare"

For there to be ANY meaningful comparison, that would have to be the case? What absolute nonsense. The problem is the sample size is too small, not that they all have to be saving the exact same shots.[/quote]of course it is nonsense to expect there to be a like for like in any valid comparisonwhat scientific or reasoned study would expect such tomfoolery ?ps it is not about sample size either as that presumes there would be that the variables would cancel each other out, they wouldn''t as there are far too many

That would be called positioning. Part of being a keeper...

you haven''t quite gut this have you ?

[The Great Drinkell 50]

probably a better question would be, would you replace Ruddy with any other Championship keeper - for me the answer is no.

[splutcho 173]

"you haven''t quite gut this have you ?"

Dearie dearie dearie me.

Terminally dim.

Cap wringing.

Ever so ''umble.

Dearie dearie me.

[Monty13 2,231]

"of course it is nonsense to expect there to be a like for like in any valid comparison

what scientific or reasoned study would expect such tomfoolery ?"

You said for ANY meaningful comparison to be made all of those details would have to be the same, and that is simply is not true.

Of course you can draw conclusions if you have a reasonable amount of data, the two sets don''t have to have been undertaken under the exact same scientific conditions to have meaning. Scientific testing conditions are not the only use of statistics, otherwise maybe you should give the ONS a call and tell them not to bother, as nearly all their data is apparently meaningless.

If you compared two keepers over a period of say a 100 games, you would be able to draw meaningful conclusions from the two sets of data, regardless of the conditions. Of course some understanding of the background would need to be taken, were they both playing at the same level for instance? but the data wouldn''t be meaningless, it would just require some rudimentary interpolation.

You would be able to draw conclusions as to who was the better stopper from shot saved ratios, better kicker, better with dealing with corners, penalty''s etc. The data would not be meaningless just because the two players statistics were formed under different conditions.

"ps it is not about sample size either as that presumes there would be that the variables would cancel each other out, they wouldn''t as there are far too many"

No it doesn''t presume this at all, the greater your sample size the more accurate median or mean of results you will achieve. It''s not about cancelling variables out completely, it''s about reducing their influence on the set and just because you can''t remove all variables it doesn''t make your data meaningless, there are a fair few scientists who would be raising their eyebrows at that.

There is a reason statistics are heavily used throughout modern sport by coaching and scouting teams, it''s because they are incredibly relevant, not all encompassing, but the greater the level of stats you have on a player the more accurate your conclusion will be. Statistics at the end of the day are just what you have seen happen in numerical form.

I''m not sure why people get so affronted by them, but I believe it''s mainly because people twist them to suit arguments by cutting down the data to a sample that suits their view rather than drawing conclusions from the data as a whole. Stats don''t lie, people do.