stat opinions

[maccawozzagod]

what is a good number of games for a player to have played in order to be considered in a list of stats?

ie

a striker who scores 5 goals in five matches then disappears would have a strike rate of a goal a game, a striker who scores a phenomenal 90 in a 100 wouldn't have as good a strike rate.

same goes for goalkeepers

I would have said 20 initially, but having now seen the stats produced by that number I want to go higher and would suggest that 35 (a full season allowing for a bit of injury) is more appropriate. Thoughts?

[cashman]

me own thoughts is a full season rob, though stats fer Accrington Cricket Club, display me owd man as playing 8 games, so who knows?

[lancsdave]

Stats are only how facts are interpreted. If a player scored 5 in 5 games it's fact, if somebody wants to interpret that as a prolific goalscoring record then so be it. The player concerend could have scored all 5 in one game and then had 4 stinkers

[maccawozzagod]

that was kinda the point Dave, over a longer period of games the true quality shows through.

I had a player showing 9 goals in his 4 games for the club and didn't want to display him above Dave Hargreaves who scored 317 in 346 games. Problem averted though as i discovered a typo on the 9 goals :-)

As an aside then, brownie points to anyone who can tell me the only player who can improve on Haggis's goal every 1.1 games? the record is since 1970 (might be longer as well but haven't checked yet) and is from a player who has played over 20 games

[cashman]

Someone actually has a better record n that rob?

[maccawozzagod]

yep, and it was that kind of useless information that prompted me to give up the last two years of my life to looking up!