Albert Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Well that proves that stats often lie. Just curious, who would you pick out of the players listed? That is, of the following, pick a "best XI": Frank Fielding Stephen Bywater Jay McEveley Jason Shackell Jake Buxton John Brayford Dean Moxey Gareth Roberts Shaun Barker Dean Leacock Paul Connolly Miles Addison Craig Bryson Ben Davies Paul Green James Bailey Jeff Hendrick Robbie Savage Stephen Pearson Gary Teale Theo Robinson Kris Commons Tomasz Cywka Jamie Ward Chris Porter Rob Hulse Steve Davies Alberto Bueno I never get this "stats" lie thing though. What do they "lie" about? Are you saying that the side hasn't gotten 1.26 points per game with Brayford in the side? Nobody's saying: "Take this list with you young one, for it is the almighty list of the quality of players, listen only to it, for it is the word given by the almighty statistics", rather it's something that is interesting that might offer a different view on it. Keep in mind even if it were the best way of ever possibly seeing it, within standard error McEveley's actual ppg according to this could range from 1.19 to 1.61, or for 95% confidence it would be 0.99 to 1.81, but I think that got lost on everyone a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFCfranco Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Stats lie when they say mcevely is in our best 11. They don't lie when they say the only team on a longer unbeaten run than Norwich in the top 5 leagues is Barcelona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Sometimes i worry about poor Albert. He probably ranked all the girl in his class by tit size. And you didn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Stats lie when they say mcevely is in our best 11. They don't lie when they say the only team on a longer unbeaten run than Norwich in the top 5 leagues is Barcelona. To be fair, they say that McEveley is the most likely to be there, but Moxey or Roberts could be within error. I can probably make a graph of that in truth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Fielding, Brayford, Roberts, Barker, Shackell, Bryson, Green, Commons, Bueno, Ward, Hulse 4-2-3-1- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Fielding, Brayford, Roberts, Barker, Shackell, Bryson, Green, Commons, Bueno, Ward, Hulse 4-2-3-1- That would be some team, but swap Hughes for Green? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Good lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Fielding, Brayford, Roberts, Barker, Shackell, Bryson, Green, Commons, Bueno, Ward, Hulse 4-2-3-1- Good lineup, but to be perfectly honest I'm not a huge fan of Bueno. When the going got tough he disappeared, but I guess that's what luxury players are like. Hulse is certainly the best option for the lone role up front from the list though, although Sammon may well give him a run for his money this coming season, if not in terms of goals, in all around play. As for a graph to explain what I meant with the errors, think of it this way: pFhvO The above shows the average Championship table over the last 15 years (the dotted blue line) and the ranges of the errors for the ppg of McEveley, Moxey and Roberts in the colours as in the legend. Notice how much overlap there is between McEveley, Moxey and Roberts. Now notice how Moxey and Roberts are pretty much on top of eachother, but Roberts' error is so his range is entirely within Moxey's. On the other hand it says that it's also possible that McEveley could actually be around top 6 level... http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/29/AbandonThread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You still haven't proved Bris wrong because you haven't taken Leacrock's 'golden season' into consideration. So ner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 You still haven't proved Bris wrong because you haven't taken Leacrock's 'golden season' into consideration. So ner. That has nothing to do with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 That has nothing to do with this. Not much 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfb Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Sometimes i worry about poor Albert. He probably ranked all the girl in his class by tit size. If you look at our Alberts profile he's not telling sex, maybe our 'Albert' is female! I could do a graph showing the % of girls that judge other girls by tit size, compared to boys but it would be irrelevant as im only interested in girls who like girls, the same as i'm only interested in who we have in the squad at the moment...... 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 If you look at our Alberts profile he's not telling sex, maybe our 'Albert' is female! I could do a graph showing the % of girls that judge other girls by tit size, compared to boys but it would be irrelevant as im only interested in girls who like girls, the same as i'm only interested in who we have in the squad at the moment...... 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /> What's wrong with girls that like boys ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFCfranco Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 EINSTEIN!!! Albert Einstein that just hit me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 EINSTEIN!!! Albert Einstein that just hit me. I would prefer zwei stein. I'm thirsty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Legzdins Brayford Shackell Barker Roberts Bailey Bryson Commons Hughes Ward Hulse Any team you make out of 5 years worth of players lacks a midfielder who can protect defenders and bring leadership higher up the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfb Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 What's wrong with girls that like boys ?? Hmmm where to start..... nothing, but girl on girl is a whole new dimension, if they like boys too.. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wub' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wub:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramesses Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 It clearly doesn't give the best XI. I'm not saying they say everything, I'm just saying they are what they are. What I do find interesting is that forgetting the whole McEveley thing, it's not actually that bad. Shackell, Theo and Bryson stand out as you'd expect. The best XI it gives, whilst clearly not the best, still isn't bad. Oddly enough I actually find the reaction to it more interesting than what it says though, as regardless of it being "just stats" or not, that is how these players have performed. That is their record, that is how well the side has done with them in it. You can argue with many things, but it's not as though this is complete rubbish, this does say something. Of course like anything you don't just look at it, decide McEveley was our second best player and go on with your day, but instead keep in context what it is. Oh well... Yes, but I’m confused what that something could be. It’s a team game and I’m not sure what valid conclusions can be drawn by rating individuals according to the team’s results. For example, Leacock and Barker are similar according to these numbers. However most of us know that Leacock was OK and held his own for a brief spell in a decent, but very lucky, side. However Barker in his first season was immense and, despite being surrounded by utter dross, probably kept us in this division. Or am I Brissing the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Yes, but I’m confused what that something could be. It’s a team game and I’m not sure what valid conclusions can be drawn by rating individuals according to the team’s results. For example, Leacock and Barker are similar according to these numbers. However most of us know that Leacock was OK and held his own for a brief spell in a decent, but very lucky, side. However Barker in his first season was immense and, despite being surrounded by utter dross, probably kept us in this division. Or am I Brissing the point? Decent but lucky side? they finished 3rd after 46 games, they deserved to go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 And this is a problem because... ...he's supposed to be teaching them algebra, not getting them to work out derby points per player! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.