Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    30 Apr '13 06:09
    Yesterday, I heard a statistician explain that, even though Robin Van Persie has scored 24 goals for Manchester United in the Premiership this season, which is 30% of the goals scored by the club, Manchester United would still have been top of the table even if Van Persie hadn't scored any of those goals.
  2. 30 Apr '13 09:35
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yesterday, I heard a statistician explain that, even though Robin Van Persie has scored 24 goals for Manchester United in the Premiership this season, which is 30% of the goals scored by the club, Manchester United would still have been top of the table even if Van Persie hadn't scored any of those goals.
    it would be interesting if they could break the goals down into how important they were on a goal by goal basis. how many winners, equalizers, opening goals and how many goals against top teams.
  3. 30 Apr '13 10:28
    Fascinating indeed, but a player's worth goes beyond the goals scored and against whom. Defense has to be committed to stopping RVP and therefore frees up others for scoring, ie, the other 70% of the goals scored. I bet that's a stat in need of evaluation. How many goals don't get scored when RVP is not on the field.
  4. 30 Apr '13 21:24 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yesterday, I heard a statistician explain that, even though Robin Van Persie has scored 24 goals for Manchester United in the Premiership this season, which is 30% of the goals scored by the club, Manchester United would still have been top of the table even if Van Persie hadn't scored any of those goals.
    I doubt that very much. I can't be bothered trawling through every fixture but I'm sure if you deducted all of his goals, the top of the league would look very different. Although it is very difficult to gauge of course, because someone else would have been in his place and may have scored themselves. It's a bit like saying 'If they played with only ten men on the pitch most games then they would be in a much worse position.

    Here's an interesting page (which I think is the point your statistician was trying to make): -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22285545

    Edit: He scored the winner against Fulham 3-2, all three against Southampton 3-2, the winner against Liverpool 2-1 and the winner against MCFC. That's just at a glance and amounts to 10 points difference already. I'm sure if you deducted the rest of the points his goals earned, then City would have won the league.

    EDIT EDIT: Just read somewhere that if Suarez hadn't scored, Liverpool would be relegated and if Torres hadn't scored then Chelsea would be 4th
  5. Subscriber roma45
    st johnstone
    14 May '13 10:18
    Originally posted by Sicilian Sausage
    I doubt that very much. I can't be bothered trawling through every fixture but I'm sure if you deducted all of his goals, the top of the league would look very different. Although it is very difficult to gauge of course, because someone else would have been in his place and may have scored themselves. It's a bit like saying 'If they played with only ...[text shortened]... , Liverpool would be relegated and if Torres hadn't scored then Chelsea would be 4th
    the bbc showed the league table without every teams top goal scorers goals taken away. man u still won the league with 19 less points, thats how many points rvp goals meant... liverpool would have been relegated