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.
