I will have to remind you Vietnam that my statistical analysis produced the preiction of a 36-7 point survival level as early as last Christmas.It may have been a fluke/lucky guess.Maybe this season will provide firmer evidence.
Yes, you did, and I was quick to accept that. And I want to say that I am not a statistician or any kind of scientist: my background is in the arts and humanities, so I might be talking out of my posterior. But, if I understand correctly, the fact that the probability of 36-7 points was far more likely statistically told us nothing about that particular occasion. All it meant was that if you took, for example, one hundred seasons, then in a significant number of them the survival point would be about 37 points given the way that the first half of the season played out. If Wigan hadn't fluffed their lines against Swansea, then last season would have been one of those occasions which defied probability.
Dazz19 suggested statto.com, which I have always used for fixtures but they have other features as well, including a season forecast statistically with Norwich predicted to finish between 8th and 14th in the league: http://www.statto.com/football/odds/ratings/england/premier-league Bit of a divergence from the bookies' forecast!
I think that's unfair on CT, Vietnam. His forecast was based on the level of the third bottom team throughout the season and was remarkably accurate on a week by week basis. People were preoccupied with the possibility that Wigan would produce another miracle finish, when statistically that was very improbable. They didn't 'fluff their lines' against Swansea, they lost to a better team, as they did against Arsenal.
Hi Robbie. On one level I obviously agree with you wholeheartedly, in the sense that I would support Enlightenment values rather than sky pixies. However, I would argue that many bad things, along with the good, have resulted from what you call 'the mathematicisation of the sciences', not least the tendency to discredit any human knowledge which is not reached through the method which we now deem to be 'scientific'. In my opinion this has led to an inappropriate valorisation of the methodology of the hard sciences in a range of fields, and especially in the arts, social studies and humanities. On to footie. Personally I can't help but feel that so many of the mass of statistics we now face (number of assists, percentage of accurate passages, shots on target, how many miles covered during the game, etc) are sometimes a kind of blizzard that stops us seeing the bleeding obvious. They can be valuable, yes, as a kind of counter to our intuitive response to a game and our tendency to see what we want to see because it is being filtered through our preconceptions, but in practice they rarely seem to be used in this way. In short, if the statistics said player A had had a **** game and my instincts told me he'd had a decent one, I'd still tend to trust my instincts.
Wouldn't have "defied" probability, because the probability was not 100%. It would have been a case where the less probable outcome was realised.
Shall I suggest a sticky thread dedicated to philosophy? I agree with you, if it ain't science, don't try and pretend it is (on which theme I notice you use the phrase "social studies" not "social sciences". Also, good word that, "valorisation"; bet it got a lot of us reaching for our dictionaries!
I hope I'm not unfair on him. He can do things I can't, and I admire him for that. You are quite right. My language, as usual, was too flowery. I should have just said 'when Wigan didn't beat Swansea'. I still think my general point is valid, though.
I can see your general point about the range of probability, being somewhere around 36-38 points, but I feel that CT was being more precise than that. Like you, my background is in the humanities and I am also wary of the 'scientificisation' of truth, and it's abuse. I also did a term on statistics, however, and learned to distrust 'gut feelings' (like Wigan producing another miracle finish) when things can be analysed more objectively.
They came close to that miracle finish. If they had beaten Swansea all they would have needed was to beat Villa at home, who were very beatable. Having said that, close but no cigar, as Groucho said.
Well, statistics never say that a player has had a **** game. They tell you what the player did or didn't do in terms of certain specific parameters. Whether doing or not doing this or that is a good or a bad thing is a completely different matter on which the statistics remain entirely neutral. What I find is that very often one poster asks another whether they were watching the same game, so differently did they apparently "see" it. What people "see" is in large part determined by things about them, including how much they know, what value they attach to different things, and so forth. Match statistics, limited as they currently are (and limited as our access to them is compared to the data available to club analysts and managers) offer a way of describing events on the pitch unskewed by the subjectivity of individual spectators. Of course, the data is compiled by people too, but the methodology attempts to minimise the extent to which what they record is affected by the belief and value systems of the recorder. The scorer on Test Match Special no doubt has his cricketing likes and dislikes, allegiances and so on. But they play no part in his entering a dot ball on his score sheet.
But the subtext of this is that subjectivity is something bad which should be eliminated and that there is some god-like position of objectivity which could be achieved if only we had adequate technology. No matter how much one tries to technologise a sport (or any other event), there comes a point at which an evaluation has to be made. And at this point subjectivity is reintroduced. I also dispute your statement that statistics remain neutral. They cannot. The decision of which statistics to collect, how they will be categorised, etc is a decision made prior to the gathering of information. There is no such thing as a neutral statistic. Every statistic is grounded in ideology. Sorry, that's philosophical again. Bringing it down to earth in a football situation, it means that all statistics exist for a reason, a purpose - to prove that player X is better than player Y, or that Chris Hughton is a negative manager whose primary concern is avoiding defeat. Statistics are political, like everything else in human life. I'm on my third bottle of wine prior to streaming the match (I hope) so forgive me if I am talking bollocks. (I'm sure I shall be embarrassed tomorrow.)
However, I am in favour of a sticky statistics thread, even though I dispute the very reason for its existence.
The whole point of statistics is to boil down the subjectivity of the game to something that has been agreed upon as important stats to track. Yes all these stats are chosen by people but the stats themselves aren't in favour of anything as they are used for every team in the same manner, that's what makes them neutral. They show an immediate break down of a game and generally indicate how that game was played. Not to say that the stats are always right and always correspond to the outcome of a match, real life isn't that neat and tidy, but it is a handy tool to provide a quick show of how a team did. It's up to pundits and the supporters to discuss everything else, but don't blame the stats!
A recurring topic on here is CH's use or non-use of substitutes. Discussion largely takes place amidst a welter of pre-conceived ideas, admiration (well-founded or not) for Paul Lambert's decisiveness on the touchline, and lack of any real perspective on the role and effectiveness of substitutions in a game of football. As usual, you might say, gut reaction reigns. Here is someone at least attempting to raise the level of debate on the subject: Do Substitutes Win Games? Hardly exhaustive, since it is based on just the greater part of last season. But it's a start. Any other links that people know of to similar articles?
