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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [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. >> >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
