• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

I liked Erik Lamela before it was cool

Jurgen the German said:
Stats prove that Brendan Rodgers almost won the league. I take it that's an unbiased stat that tells the complete story?
Click to expand...
There's no stat that proves anything of the sort.

Your belief that it does shows nothing other than your lack of understanding of the application of statistics and goes a long way to show why you don't believe in their efficacy.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Exactly. You could look at Adebayor's stats and deduce that he's a bordeline world class player at his best.
Click to expand...

At his best he is and that's the conundrum with him. That's why he has been able to earn the wage that he is currently on, and that's why he has managed to play for Arsenal, Real Madrid, Emirates Marketing Project and us. But, the stats will also show that he doesn't play very often and therefore that is something to look at. When it is looked at it will show that he is a waster/chancer and therefore should be rid of.
 
Jurgen the German said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013–14_Premier_League

You're welcome Scara, Liverpool finished a whopping 2 points behind the champions.
Click to expand...
You still don't understand. I'll try and put it in as simple language as I can, but I'm really not very good at explaining very basic things so please forgive me if it's still too complicated.

What you have is a single point node of information which tells us that a team made up of many constituent parts - only one of which being the manager, finished two points from the leaders. It says nothing about nearlys maybes ifs whats or whatevers and it says nothing about the ability of the manager. What you have is a large number of what are commonly known as effectors (inside and outside of the team) and you are mistakenly assuming one and only one of them to be the principle one and also that there is some kind of cause and effect between them.

As I've said previously, if you're trying to argue that people who can't understand stats don't understand them or that people who don't know how to apply them shouldn't use them, you won't get any argument from me. But seriously, your use of statistics is a little bit like watching Ali Dia flopping around a football pitch.
 
Jurgen the German said:
What you have is a single point node of information which tells us that a team made up of many constituent parts - only one of which being the manager, finished two points from the leaders. It says nothing about nearlys maybes ifs whats or whatevers and it says nothing about the ability of the manager. What you have is a large number of what are commonly known as effectors (inside and outside of the team) and you are mistakenly assuming one and only one of them to be the principle one and also that there is some kind of cause and effect between them.

.
Click to expand...

You have a good point and tend to agree with you over that, but that goes for the vast majority of stats in football which is the point I have been making elsewhere. You seem to disagree with what I have said and yet you have kind of summed up what I have been saying, stats very rarely tell the full story.
 
parklane1 said:
You have a good point and tend to agree with you over that, but that goes for the vast majority of stats in football which is the point I have been making elsewhere. You seem to disagree with what I have said and yet you have kind of summed up what I have been saying, stats very rarely tell the full story.
Click to expand...
I'll argue on your side all day against the incorrect application of stats. That's not the same as the general "I don't believe in stats" nonsense that we get so much on this site though.

The stats represented in this thread are fairly closely correlated with the points being made. Is there some fluff in there? Of course, but there's enough in there to show some significance too.

The reason I ask about 2009 is that since then, stats in the PL have been fairly comprehensive. It's been even better over the last couple of years where more sites have made that data easy to query.
 
scaramanga said:
I'll argue on your side all day against the incorrect application of stats. That's not the same as the general "I don't believe in stats" nonsense that we get so much on this site though.

The stats represented in this thread are fairly closely correlated with the points being made. Is there some fluff in there? Of course, but there's enough in there to show some significance too.

The reason I ask about 2009 is that since then, stats in the PL have been fairly comprehensive. It's been even better over the last couple of years where more sites have made that data easy to query.
Click to expand...

Well I have never said "I don't believe in stats" but I understand that you may have heard others say that and it is foolish I agree. The problem is that some fans think they are the best way of making a conclusion on a player ( where in truth they are part of the process nothing more).

And as for stats being fairly "comprehensive" since 2009 they may be more avaiiable to the average fan then they used to be but they have always been used in football. I started my FA badges in 1990 and I can assure you they were widely used then so your point there is only part true.

I will say it again stats are a tool and used in the right way can be a asset to coming to a conclusion but only if used in the right way and not taken as the "proof" of anything.
 
Who do you think has used stats in the wrong way Parklane? All I see is people using them as a tool, like you say they should be used...
 
parklane1 said:
Are you serious, I have seen and heard fans make decisions on players and use stats to show it.
Click to expand...
I am serious yes, you take a hell of a lot of threads down this route whenever stats get brought up without actually saying who it is you think is misusing the information - might save the bother of having to go through it all again (and again) if it was directed at someone in particular, all I see is posters backing their opinion up "I think so and is doing well, here's some stats which support my opinion" stuff like that, nothing wrong with that afaic
 
billyiddo said:
I am serious yes, you take a hell of a lot of threads down this route whenever stats get brought up without actually saying who it is you think is misusing the information - might save the bother of having to go through it all again (and again) if it was directed at someone in particular, all I see is posters backing their opinion up "I think so and is doing well, here's some stats which support my opinion" stuff like that, nothing wrong with that afaic
Click to expand...

As you say we have been around this on several occasions and we are not going to agree so we are both wasting our time, I have never accused any one of misleading anyone( so you are wrong on that). I said stats can be misleading and that is a different thing then accusing someone of doing it on purpose.
 
parklane1 said:
As you say we have been around this on several occasions and we are not going to agree so we are both wasting our time, I have never accused any one of misleading anyone( so you are wrong on that).
Click to expand...
If you don't think anyone is misleading anyone here then I have to ask what the point in keep bringing this up all the time is?
 
billyiddo said:
If you don't think anyone is misleading anyone here then I have to ask what the point in keep bringing this up all the time is?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep bothering to reply to my point if it tinkles you off that much. Or do only your opinions count on this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back