Nothing. I showed you a table that showed that 18 of 20 teams were within 3 places of the forecast and 15 were within 2 places. There is an element of luck and other factors in this as I explained in my earlier response to Matt. It's not a perfect model but it explains 90% of variability.
On 20 December 2011 10:22, Marcus Chantry <chant...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > 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 <chant...@iinet.net.au> 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 <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. >> >> >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
