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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Morris, Lee SGT > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM > To: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Jeremy Tonks > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 > To: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Morris, Lee SGT > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM > To: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Jeremy Tonks > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 > To: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Morris, Lee SGT > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM > To: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM > > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > Hold the front page. What a scoop! > > On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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.
