In the words of Hilaire Belloc: "It has long been recognised by public men of all kinds, that statistics come under the head of lying, and that no lie is so false or inconclusive as that which is based on statistics."
On 20/12/2011, at 10:42 , Steven Millward wrote: > Nothing. I showed you a table that showed that 18 of 20 teams were within 3 > places of the forecast and 15 were within 2 places. There is an element of > luck and other factors in this as I explained in my earlier response to Matt. > It's not a perfect model but it explains 90% of variability. > > > > On 20 December 2011 10:22, Marcus Chantry <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > ok, let's see how much you trust your statistics. How much are you willing > to place on a bet that Wolves will finish exactly fourth from bottom? > > > On 20/12/2011, at 10:20 , Steven Millward wrote: > >> See you're trying to discredit me by the absurd. The last bastion of a >> scoundrel. >> >> I say there is a need for a manager to do the things that managers do, but >> that beyond a certain level of competence and experience there is very >> little difference in the influence they have on performance. >> >> We need a manager. >> My analysis says that Mick is a good one. >> We should focus on something that is of more importance than this >> superstitious nonsense. >> >> On 20 December 2011 10:05, Marcus Chantry <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >> you are correct that insurance is very heavily dependant on statistics for >> assessing and pricing for risks. However, I am not an actuary and my role >> for the best part of 17 years has been to challenge actuaries to ensure that >> my products are affordable and sustainable, in effect disproving many of the >> stats that they use to paint a certain doom & gloom picture. Actuaries can >> make stats tell whatever story they want them to, but they are very >> conservative by nature and only assess the stats that they think help their >> argument. Sound familiar Steve? >> >> Let's think outside the square and devise a system whereby each season >> ticket holder is given a one month tenure as team selector. This does away >> with the need to have a manager and coaching staff but leaves one person >> that can be blamed each month depending on performances (over which they've >> clearly had no effect one). Save money and remove the unnecessary >> managerial merry-go-round. >> >> >> On 20/12/2011, at 09:30 , Steven Millward wrote: >> >>> Interesting point of view from someone that works in insurance, an industry >>> that is entirely based on the statistical pricing of risk. >>> >>> Please take the stats I have presented and make them support your agenda. >>> I can send you the spreadsheet if you want to have a go. >>> >>> I understand it must be confronting to have long held belief destroyed in >>> front of your eyes. I suppose you can always rely on "faith" and ignore >>> the facts >>> >>> On 20 December 2011 08:40, Marcus Chantry <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >>> Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. >>> Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate >>> statistics to support their own agenda. >>> >>> >>> On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote: >>> >>>> You’ve missed the point Lee ;) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How much is he being paid? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical >>>> validity?! >>>> >>>> I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On >>>> Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM >>>> To: nswolves@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> UNCLASSIFIED >>>> >>>> Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry >>>> stats on Mol Mix? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Are these stats too much of a coincidence???? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2010-2011 - With Karl Henry >>>> P28 ( + 1 sub ) >>>> W7 ( 21 points ) >>>> D6 ( 6 points ) >>>> L16 >>>> Pts: 27 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry >>>> P9 >>>> W4 ( 12 points ) >>>> D1 ( 1 point ) >>>> L4 >>>> Pts: 13 points >>>> >>>> >>>> 2011-2012 - With Karl Henry >>>> P 14 >>>> W3 ( 9 points ) >>>> D2 ( 2 points ) >>>> L9 >>>> Pts: 11 >>>> >>>> 2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry >>>> P1 >>>> W1 ( 3 points ) >>>> Pts: 3 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence >>>> and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. >>>> If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the >>>> sender and delete the email. >>>> >>>> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On >>>> Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 >>>> To: nswolves@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] >>>> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >>>> >>>> I’m not going to put Sunderland in that basket for a few more weeks yet… >>>> >>>> …and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their >>>> collective backsides sooner rather than later J >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On >>>> Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM >>>> To: nswolves@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] >>>> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> UNCLASSIFIED >>>> >>>> There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now Sunderland have >>>> nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much.... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence >>>> and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. >>>> If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the >>>> sender and delete the email. >>>> >>>> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On >>>> Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 >>>> To: nswolves@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] >>>> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >>>> >>>> You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way… just who is it >>>> that is going to replace MM? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On >>>> Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM >>>> To: nswolves@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] >>>> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> UNCLASSIFIED >>>> >>>> So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, >>>> simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they >>>> had previoulsy....I rest my case. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Again using West Brom as an example, we were just about on equal terms >>>> when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to battle >>>> along with MM. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need >>>> for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the >>>> face after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun >>>> with the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand >>>> the timing aspect re the economy......I blame Mick for the way we >>>> play...its horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the >>>> championship more. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence >>>> and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. >>>> If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the >>>> sender and delete the email. >>>> >>>> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On >>>> Behalf Of Steven Millward >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 >>>> To: nswolves@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew >>>> >>>> I've taken my points on to Molineux Mix if anyone's interested >>>> http://molineuxmix.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=66061 >>>> >>>> Here's some more interesting data in the table below. >>>> >>>> League rank is the position that the team finished in the league >>>> Wage rank is the position forecast by wages >>>> >>>> You'll notice that wages are a great predicitor of league position. >>>> 10 teams are within one position of their prediction. >>>> 15 teams are within two positions of their prediction >>>> 18 teams are within three positions of their prediction. >>>> >>>> I've sorted the table by the last column which is the difference between >>>> the league and wage ranking. The teams at the top are the ones that >>>> seemingly outperformed their resources. >>>> >>>> You'll notice all the "good" managers are near the top of the list: >>>> Hodgson - Pulis - Redknapp - Ferguson - McCARTHY >>>> >>>> The way I see if you can say that either management is important and Mick >>>> is a good manager or management is unimportant. >>>> >>>> There's no room to say that managment is important and Mick is a bad >>>> manager because the facts don't support it. >>>> >>>> Team..........League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference >>>> West Brom..........11..............19................8 >>>> Fulham................8...............11.......... ......3 >>>> Stoke................13...............15.......... ......2 >>>> Spurs..................5................7......... .......2 >>>> Man Utd..............1................3............... ..2 >>>> Wolves..............17...............18........... .....1 >>>> Blackpool...........19...............20........... .....1 >>>> Arsenal...............4.................5......... .......1 >>>> Everton..............7.................8.......... ......1 >>>> Wigan...............16...............16........... .....0 >>>> Newcastle..........12...............12............ ....0 >>>> Bolton...............14...............14.......... ......0 >>>> Chelsea..............2.................1.......... .....-1 >>>> Birmingham.........18...............17............ ..-1 >>>> Man City.............3.................2.............. .-1 >>>> Liverpool.............6.................4......... ......-2 >>>> Sunderland.........10................8............ ....-2 >>>> Aston villa...........9.................6...............-3 >>>> Blackburn...........15...............12........... ....-3 >>>> West Ham..........20................8...............-12 >>>> >>>> On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe <pcr...@contechengineering.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hughes’s Granny would be better than MM! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our >>>> teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, >>>> nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Paul Crowe >>>> >>>> Sales Manager - Asia Pacific >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ConTech (Sydney Office) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> PO Box 3517 >>>> >>>> Rhodes Waterside >>>> >>>> Rhodes NSW 2138 >>>> >>>> Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 >>>> >>>> Mob: 0406009562 >>>> >>>> Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com >>>> >>>> Website: www.contechengineering.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On >>>> Behalf Of Steven Millward >>>> Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> To: nswolves@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hold the front page. What a scoop! >>>> >>>> On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart <wholiga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Well just have to wait and see. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward <millward....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked him >>>> out. I've hacked it. >>>> >>>> Where is that rumour from? >>>> >>>> On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart <wholiga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Why were you bannned Matthew ? >>>> Did you dare to ask for the head of MM >>>> >>>> Has anybody else heard the rumour >>>> That Mark Hughes was at the Stoke >>>> game ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
