The Accuracy of Match Statistics

[MachoMadness]

22, actually. It's just using my carefully calculated stats I determined that you have a 3% posting efficiency, whereas the most interesting posters on this site have somewhere close to a 5% posting efficiency. Therefore, using my scientologist background I formulated the theory that your posts are utter b*llocks and nobody wants to read them when most of our fans are buzzing following 3 points for the Rovers - or ever, for that matter. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

[MrFrost]

Barca v Chelsea. Nuff said.

[mjdgreg]

Barca v Chelsea. Nuff said.

This is the exception that proves the rule. Also Chelsea's possession efficiency stats overall during the whole season were better than Barca's.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Mick, see my post in "8 games in - is it too early to get excited?" - should have posted it here. Too much theorising going on here, lets see the practice and what you can do with League 1 stats and the matches this Tues.

[MrFrost]

Barca v Chelsea. Nuff said.

This is the exception that proves the rule. Also Chelsea's possession efficiency stats overall during the whole season were better than Barca's.

So, when you are wrong, you play the "exception to the rule" card. Jog on fella. You're boring everyone.

[silent majority]

Barca v Chelsea. Nuff said.

This is the exception that proves the rule. Also Chelsea's possession efficiency stats overall during the whole season were better than Barca's.

Can you explain how this exception proves the rule?

[mjdgreg]

So, when you are wrong, you play the "exception to the rule" card. Jog on fella. You're boring everyone.

Look, football is a funny game. One freak result doesn't prove things one way or another. However if you check the possession efficiency stats of those games, Chelsea's weren't that much worse than Barca's which implies a much closer game than you might think on pure possession terms alone.

[dickos1]

One freak result??? There are dozens every week. Dozens of matches every week where the winning side had less possession than the losing side.
But as you do your research I'm sure you know this. Which makes it even more baffling why you carry on when you know it's b*llocks.
We've won 6 games this year out of 10 and you say our stats are dreadful, so how many rules have we broken??

[BobG]

What's all this guff about 'scientology' got to do with anything???? Scientology is a system of beliefs developed by L Ron Hubbard that was incorporated as a church. What's that got to do with togger? Only mad buggers have anything to do with it.

And Mick: I know you are a clever bloke with a bent for picking up on the flaws in arguments and exploting them to the nth degeree. But it really is getting more than a tad boring now. And the clangers you drop from time to time do nothing but undermine the claim to intelligence. Scientology! FFS man! You're not one in disguise are you?

BobG

[silent majority]

Barca v Chelsea. Nuff said.

This is the exception that proves the rule. Also Chelsea's possession efficiency stats overall during the whole season were better than Barca's.

Can you explain how this exception proves the rule?

Come on Mick don't ignore me, answer the question!

[mjdgreg]

Come on mjdgreg don't ignore me, answer the question!

OK. If you insist. I'll give a simple everyday example that explains the meaning of the phrase.

A parking sign that states 'Free parking on Sunday' should lead you to deduce that on every other day of the week you will be charged for parking. The exception therefore proves the rule. So if Chelsea 'manage to beat Barca with less possession efficiency once in a blue moon' then that should lead you to deduce that Barca will win most of the other times they play. The exception therefore proves the rule.

[silent majority]

Come on mjdgreg don't ignore me, answer the question!

OK. If you insist. I'll give a simple everyday example that explains the meaning of the phrase.

A parking sign that states 'Free parking on Sunday' should lead you to deduce that on every other day of the week you will be charged for parking. The exception therefore proves the rule. So if Chelsea 'manage to beat Barca with less possession efficiency once in a blue moon' then that should lead you to deduce that Barca will win most of the other times they play. The exception therefore proves the rule.

What codswallop! You've misused the phrase yet again. The first example you quote is correct, however Chelsea beating Barca in that fashion proves absolutely nothing apart from your brass necked ability to brazen it out when you are exposed for being a first rate wum.

[Akinfenwa]

OK. If you insist. I'll give a simple everyday example that explains the meaning of the phrase.

A parking sign that states 'Free parking on Sunday' should lead you to deduce that on every other day of the week you will be charged for parking. The exception therefore proves the rule. So if Chelsea 'manage to beat Barca with less possession efficiency once in a blue moon' then that should lead you to deduce that Barca will win most of the other times they play. The exception therefore proves the rule.

Please remember to cite your sources in future.

"For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_exception_that_proves_the_rule


I wouldn't have thought that one who seems to be so comfortable using the phrase would require Wikipedia in order to explain it. Not that it actually helped you in justifying your use of the phrase with any sense.

[mjdgreg]

I don't need Wikipedia. My phrase is along the same lines but is not the same. I think I've explained the phrase in a very clear and easy to understand manner. I don't know why people can't understand that.

[Dagenham Rover]

I don't need Wikipedia. My phrase is along the same lines but is not the same. I think I've explained the phrase in a very clear and easy to understand manner. I don't know why people can't understand that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_exception_that_proves_the_rule

I think plagarise is the word you are looking for 

[wilts rover]

I don't need Wikipedia. My phrase is along the same lines but is not the same. I think I've explained the phrase in a very clear and easy to understand manner. I don't know why people can't understand that.

same, same - but different

No the Sunday Parking example does not explain your previous 'facts'. Sunday is a fixed exampler - as are Monday to Saturday, they are a finite entity and therefore understandable, measurable and able to be appointed to a rule.
The outcome of a football match is always related to an uncertain outcome of chance, everytime they play there is a 50% chance Barcelona will win, a 50% chance Chelsea will win and a 50% chance it will be a draw. The players, venue, tactics, weather conditions, beach balls on the pitch, all variables. Therefore the comparison is invalid.

Next please.

[mjdgreg]

I think plagarise is the word you are looking for

I think plagiarise is the word you are looking for. Sorry I couldn't resist. I did try really hard.

[mjdgreg]

same, same - but different

No the Sunday Parking example does not explain your previous 'facts'. Sunday is a fixed exampler - as are Monday to Saturday, they are a finite entity and therefore understandable, measurable and able to be appointed to a rule.
The outcome of a football match is always related to an uncertain outcome of chance, everytime they play there is a 50% chance Barcelona will win, a 50% chance Chelsea will win and a 50% chance it will be a draw. The players, venue, tactics, weather conditions, beach balls on the pitch, all variables. Therefore the comparison is invalid.

Next please.

I'd like to know where you plagiarised that load of gobbledygook from. I'm glad you don't come up with any stats if your grasp of percentages is anything to go by. When you have 3 outcomes then the percentages (all other things being equal) are 33.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333% on each outcome. So my comparison is valid. 

[Dagenham Rover]

I think plagarise is the word you are looking for

I think plagiarise is the word you are looking for. Sorry I couldn't resist. I did try really hard.

Can't argue with the fact of the post so we'll just pick up on the typo eh   

[wilts rover]

same, same - but different

No the Sunday Parking example does not explain your previous 'facts'. Sunday is a fixed exampler - as are Monday to Saturday, they are a finite entity and therefore understandable, measurable and able to be appointed to a rule.
The outcome of a football match is always related to an uncertain outcome of chance, everytime they play there is a 50% chance Barcelona will win, a 50% chance Chelsea will win and a 50% chance it will be a draw. The players, venue, tactics, weather conditions, beach balls on the pitch, all variables. Therefore the comparison is invalid.

Next please.

I'd like to know where you plagiarised that load of gobbledygook from. I'm glad you don't come up with any stats if your grasp of percentages is anything to go by. When you have 3 outcomes then the percentages (all other things being equal) are 33.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333% on each outcome. So my comparison is valid. 

I presume by now you have realised that you fell straight, hook, line, sinker, scientologically speaking, straight into the trap I set you - and admited that the outcome of a football match is a variable - not fixed - therebye disproving and contradicting all you have previously said!!!

Btw - it is scientologically proven that 50% of all statistics are false

[mjdgreg]

I presume by now you have realised that you fell straight, hook, line, sinker, scientologically speaking, straight into the trap I set you - and admited that the outcome of a football match is a variable - not fixed - therebye disproving and contradicting all you have previously said!!!

Btw - it is scientologically proven that 50% of all statistics are false

I'm afraid you've lost me. I've never said that the outcome of a match is fixed, so I don't know how you've drawn your conclusions. As I've stated before, I am not a scientologist. I leave all that to Billy.

[Bristol Red Rover]

...I've never said that the outcome of a match is fixed...

You're saying that in the long term, these stats you use will reap rewards, its all about playing the probabilities ie pro gambling. So if tomorrows results don't go your way, it suggests something but proves nothing. I understand that. We can do the same on several other occasions thru the season, each round being closer to, but never actually grasping, the holy grail of "truth".

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bleeding useless site, deleting a well thought out post.

I'll try again.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

BRR. You make a very good point about checking the validity of a prediction against actual outcomes. That forms the basis of the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method proceeds as follows:
a) You observe information about the world around you.
b) You develop a hypothesis that could explain how and (perhaps, though not necessarily) why certain things are related, so that, for example, X leads to Y. For example, a hypothesis might be that high possession percentages generally lead to success.
c) You check other data from the world around to to find out if X actually DOES lead to Y.
d) If you find that it does, your hypothesis is a good way of predicting what will happen in future and you have confidence in using it in other scenarios.
e) If you find that it doesn't, then your hypothesis has been demonstrated to be false and should be put back in the box.

Mick has a few problems with this approach.

Firstly, he uses highly questionable data to set up his hypotheses. We've seen that the possession stats that he so admires are all over the place, and frequently are physically impossible. And we've seen that he can't add up how many shots teams have had.

Secondly, we don't actually know what his hypothesis for predicting football success actually is. At various times over the last few weeks, it has been possession percentage, number of shots per game, possession efficiency or goal difference that is the indicator of success. Frequently, he changes his mind within one thread.

Finally, when his preferred approach on any particular day is shown to be useless at predicting actual outcomes, he claims that this is the exception that proves the rule. Not realising that what it actually is, is the exception that proves that the hypothesis doesn't work. Especially when those exceptions seem to be occurring more often than the rule itself.

Now any one of those claims that possession percentage, shots, possession efficiency or goal difference can predict outcomes could form the basis of a testable hypothesis. But unless Mick tells us what he is using to predict the match and season outcomes, we have nothing to work on. For example, he has hammered on at length this weekend about possession efficiency being the Big Thing. But when it came to predicting this week's games, he reckons that the team with the worst PE in the division will beat the team with the best PE, because they have a better goal difference.

If Mick will finally focus and tell us exactly what measurement it is that we are supposed to use to predict successful outcomes of matches, on average, over the long term, then we'll be getting somewhere.

Then, he can go off and spend a year or so collecting data, checking whether his hypothesis works and finally drawing a conclusion on whether the hypothesis is valid or not.

In the meantime, we can all be saved the weekly stat rant.

[FuzzyDuck]

mjdgreg - a quick question.

Every week, you go on about possession and shots taken by us in comparison with the opposition.  Then you go on about Dean Saunders taking or not taking your advice.

But what is your advice?  Keep hold of the ball and take more shots seems a gross simplification of the game so what is it you're after?  A possession based game like SOD preferred to play?  Direct football characterized by Dave Bassett or Sam Allardyce?  How would you describe it?

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg - a quick question.

Every week, you go on about possession and shots taken by us in comparison with the opposition.  Then you go on about Dean Saunders taking or not taking your advice.

But what is your advice?  Keep hold of the ball and take more shots seems a gross simplification of the game so what is it you're after?  A possession based game like SOD preferred to play?  Direct football characterized by Dave Bassett or Sam Allardyce?  How would you describe it?

At last. Someone who knows my proper name. What I'm after is more possession with more attempts on goal. Simple. This way we score more goals and limit the number the opposition does. Constantly hoofing the ball to the opposition has the opposite effect.

[dickos1]

"Constantly hoofing the ball to the opposition has the opposite effect"

But we all know that's not true now mick,

[FuzzyDuck]

Yes, but how do we achieve possession and more attempts on goal?  As I suggested, this is a gross simplification.  What does Deano say yogis team before the game?  Short passes will keep the ball more effectively than playing directly?  But playing directly will tend to get you more efforts on goal.  So there's a kind of contradiction there.  Plus you have opponents trying to get you off the ball and stop you from shooting.

So I ask again.  What advice should Deano actually give to his team?  Please go beyond keep the ball and take more shots - that's like telling Gordon Ramsey to put all ingredients in and mix well.  Let's get tactical.

[bobjimwilly]

Why hasn't this clown been banned yet? As I said, it's easy to ignore his usual stats threads when they get locked, but then he just goes and pulls the same crap in hijacking other threads to get attention. I never want to hear this forum referred to as a police state ever again - believe me, this shit would not fly on any other forum you care to mention and Mick would've been banned months ago.

Also, the 'free speech' argument annoys me. It's nothing to do with free speech, and certainly nothing to do with soldiers fighting and dying in two world wars. Why invoke that image? It doesn't add anything to your argument, but people do it because they think invoking the name of soldiers is a catch-all line that no-one can go against. It doesn't apply here. My grandad didn't fight in WW2 so some prick could act the fool on the internet, that's for sure. This isn't the real world, it's the internet, and you're on a forum run and owned by someone else. Being allowed to post on it isn't your right, it's a privilege, and one which should be taken away if you want to abuse it. Honestly, there are still people all over the world who are being legitimately oppressed and having their free speech taken away, and some folk on here are whining about being banned on a forum as if it's the first step on the road to fascism.

totally agree. if certain posters continue to hijack threads with off-topic and irrelevant drivel, they will be banned. Certain posters are also being closely monitored too.

[mjdgreg]

Yes, but how do we achieve possession and more attempts on goal?  As I suggested, this is a gross simplification.  What does Deano say yogis team before the game?  Short passes will keep the ball more effectively than playing directly?  But playing directly will tend to get you more efforts on goal.  So there's a kind of contradiction there.  Plus you have opponents trying to get you off the ball and stop you from shooting.

So I ask again.  What advice should Deano actually give to his team?  Please go beyond keep the ball and take more shots - that's like telling Gordon Ramsey to put all ingredients in and mix well.  Let's get tactical.

Ok. There are many aspects to playing possession football well but I don't want to go through them all because that would take a long time. I'll just concentrate on the possession side of things and explain the advantages of playing this way. If you're like me then you like to watch beautiful possession based football.

How many people actually enjoy hoofball? Not many I suspect. So first thing, playing this way would lead to an increase in attendances because fans would actually enjoy what they're seeing. They need to be entertained. Why should JR expect anyone to go to a game if they're not being entertained? How is this achieved?

The first crucial ingredient is to be able to hold onto the ball and not play hoofball. Aimless long balls simply gives the ball back to the opposition. Holding onto the ball does many things. Most importantly it helps your attacking intent. Passing the ball around frustrates the opposition and makes them move out of position which then creates gaps for you to exploit.

Possession football also helps you out defensively. If the opposition haven't got the ball they are unable to start any attacks of their own. Defending becomes a much easier job if the opposition haven't got the ball.

If you dominate possession then you are also able to control the tempo of a game. You can speed up or slow down play as you wish. By controlling the tempo of a game you gain the upper hand straight away.

If you pass and move, the ball does the work and tires the opposition.  Its much harder trying to play without possession as you do a lot more running trying to get the ball back. The longer you do this the more tired and frustrated you become.

There you have it. A brief explanation of why possession football is much more preferable to hoofball.

[TheFunk]

Under SOD supposedly we played possession football. The flaw was we tired more than the opposition thus conceding many late goals without scoring many ourselves. Also when playing against ten men we still tired more meaning even with an extra man we rarely got a result.