Tottenham Hotstats

[1882]

someone needs to pour coffee on the Spurcomputer!!

 

[Louisiana Hotspur]

Well you do have to admit that bottom 3 looks a decent prediction.

 

[Kafkaesque]

Keeping a record to see how accurate or how bullshit stats are.

Chelsea have dropped 15 points from the original 10,000 simulator and Leicester gained 22.

Stats can never capture the elusive chance of environment, opportunity, human spirit or even substance of the number itself.

Wonder if we'll ever be predicted to be on top? Probably not, but will be sweet when we will be there at the end of the season and the supercomputer simulated 60,000 times + will have failed to have gotten it right.

October 7th (8)-November 10th (12)-December 16th (16)-January 25th (23)
01. Man City 80-79-76-74
02. Woolwich 78-78-77-75
03. Man Utd 75-76-72-65
04. Chelsea 72-66-59-57
05. Liverpool 65-64-64-61
06. Tottenham 64-66-64-68
07. Everton 57-56-55-51
08. Southampton 54-56-51-53
09. Crystal Palace 53-52-53-50
10. West Ham 50-53-51-56
11. Swansea 47-45-41-42
12. Stoke 46-48-50-52
13. Leicester 45-50-61-67
14. West Brom 40-42-44-44
15. Newcastle 38-39-41-38
16. Norwich 38-37-35-38
17. Watford 37-39-44-47
18. Bournemouth 36-33-37-39
19. Aston Villa 34-33-29-28
20. Sunderland 32-31-33-33

October 7th (8) -November 10th (12)-December 16th (16)-January 25th (23)
01. Man City 01-01-02-02
02. Woolwich 02-02-01-01
03. Man Utd 03-03-03-05
04. Chelsea 04-04-07-07
05. Liverpool 05-06-05-06
06. Tottenham 06-05-04-03
07. Everton 07-08-08-11
08. Southampton 08-07-10-09
09. Crystal Palace 09-10-09-12
10. West Ham 10-09-11-08
11. Swansea 11-13-15-15
12. Stoke 12-12-12-10
13. Leicester 13-11-06-04
14. West Brom 14-14-14-14
15. Newcastle 15-16-16-17
16. Norwich 16-17-18-18
17. Watford 17-15-13-13
18. Bournemouth 18-19-17-16
19. Aston Villa 19-18-20-20
20. Sunderland 20-20-19-19

Someone explained it pretty well in another thread, and you open a new one where all you're proving is that you still don't understand what stats does and means

 

[Louisiana Hotspur]

I think the Elephant in the room is this;
why, on any given Saturday/Sunday... do we go to games, sometimes with that weird feeling of confidence (that knows no statistical limits) that we will win today... "I can just feel it in my water"
Then on any other given Saturday/Sunday... do we go to games, (against statistically beatable opposition) with that horrible, gut-wrenching feeling, that everything is about to go wrong...
STATISTICS don't back that feeling up, they just make it worse by proving to us what should've happened!

That's where STATISTICS and real life tend to get in the way of one another...

...and I think that's the point i've been trying to make all along!

FINALLY... and against all the statistical odds... I've managed it!

I think he answered this by pointing out that statistics don't predict outcomes. In other words, they don't predict what will happen today, they approximate what would happen, say, if today occurred 100 times.

Your point is akin to saying, "yeah but If a flush is a statistically good poker hand then how did I have a flush and lose?"

 

[Louisiana Hotspur]

Seems to be a Euro thing. In America we don't shorten it to maths, just math.

Is this the part where you tell them it's called soccer, spelled "color," and pronounced "alooominum?" If you're going to post here you should probably come to terms with the fact British English is used worldwide and American English is used only in America. Might just make things easier for yourself.

 

[scott]

everyone knows stats can be very misleading.
we are a pt worse off when kane plays.
we would be doing better if he had never played for us.
yeah, righto!

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Keeping a record to see how accurate or how bullshit stats are.

Chelsea have dropped 15 points from the original 10,000 simulator and Leicester gained 22.

Stats can never capture the elusive chance of environment, opportunity, human spirit or even substance of the number itself.

Wonder if we'll ever be predicted to be on top? Probably not, but will be sweet when we will be there at the end of the season and the supercomputer simulated 60,000 times + will have failed to have gotten it right.

October 7th (8)-November 10th (12)-December 16th (16)-January 25th (23)
01. Man City 80-79-76-74
02. Woolwich 78-78-77-75
03. Man Utd 75-76-72-65
04. Chelsea 72-66-59-57
05. Liverpool 65-64-64-61
06. Tottenham 64-66-64-68
07. Everton 57-56-55-51
08. Southampton 54-56-51-53
09. Crystal Palace 53-52-53-50
10. West Ham 50-53-51-56
11. Swansea 47-45-41-42
12. Stoke 46-48-50-52
13. Leicester 45-50-61-67
14. West Brom 40-42-44-44
15. Newcastle 38-39-41-38
16. Norwich 38-37-35-38
17. Watford 37-39-44-47
18. Bournemouth 36-33-37-39
19. Aston Villa 34-33-29-28
20. Sunderland 32-31-33-33

October 7th (8) -November 10th (12)-December 16th (16)-January 25th (23)
01. Man City 01-01-02-02
02. Woolwich 02-02-01-01
03. Man Utd 03-03-03-05
04. Chelsea 04-04-07-07
05. Liverpool 05-06-05-06
06. Tottenham 06-05-04-03
07. Everton 07-08-08-11
08. Southampton 08-07-10-09
09. Crystal Palace 09-10-09-12
10. West Ham 10-09-11-08
11. Swansea 11-13-15-15
12. Stoke 12-12-12-10
13. Leicester 13-11-06-04
14. West Brom 14-14-14-14
15. Newcastle 15-16-16-17
16. Norwich 16-17-18-18
17. Watford 17-15-13-13
18. Bournemouth 18-19-17-16
19. Aston Villa 19-18-20-20
20. Sunderland 20-20-19-19

I don't understand how these stats show how rubbish Poch and our results under him are.......

 

[Louisiana Hotspur]

everyone knows stats can be very misleading.
we are a pt worse off when kane plays.
we would be doing better if he had never played for us.
yeah, righto!

The quality of stats themselves can be measured by things like sample size. Also, the conclusions you draw from stats are your own, they aren't the stats' fault. If you think we're better off without Kane then that's your own conclusion based on a statistic that has a weak correlation with results.

 

[scott]

The quality of stats themselves can be measured by things like sample size. Also, the conclusions you draw from stats are your own, they aren't the stats' fault. If you think we're better off without Kane then that's your own conclusion based on a statistic that has a weak correlation with results.

thats what the stat suggests though.
& other people have used it to say we wont miss kane if he got injured.
but yes, its up to us what conclusion we draw from it.
i choose to conclude its a misleading pointless stat.

 

[Louisiana Hotspur]

thats what the stat suggests though.
& other people have used it to say we dont miss kane.
but yes, its up to us what conclusion we draw from it.
i choose to conclude its a misleading pointless stat.

I'm not really sure what stat you're referring to so its hard for me to judge it. But it sounds like a stat that suggests that is not very sophisticated. All stats are not equal. Giving an example of a stupid statistic does not discredit the value of statistics.

 

[The Yinzer]

Abbreviated form of 'mathematics'

Do you use plural verbs when talking about it? (i.e. "Maths are hard.")

 

[Louisiana Hotspur]

For example, saying I lost with a hand of a flush in poker, so I am 0 for 1 with a flush. That is a correct statistic but a useless one because of the sample size. It does not discredit statistics. You would be foolish to rely on 0 for 1 to conclude that a flush is a bad hand to bet on..

 

[Joe Clash]

Do you use plural verbs when talking about it? (i.e. "Maths are hard.")

Maths is hard

Physics is hard

 

[alexwooty]

We do not need another stats thread. It's already been established that there are people on here who:

1. Understand stats and appreciate that we can use them to improve our understanding of the game
2. Think they understand stats but actually do not, leading them to draw wrong conclusions and argue that stats are useless
3. Do not understand stats and do not want to understand them, as they prefer thinking about the game in the same way they always have done for the x years they've been following it

The same arguments between these people will just go round and round in circles...

 

[alexwooty]

Do you use plural verbs when talking about it? (i.e. "Maths are hard.")

Not usually, but that's because it's generally discussed in the context of being a singular subject/lesson/class, leading to "Maths is hard".

Would you say "Religious Studies is hard" or "Religious Studies are hard"?

 

[The Yinzer]

We do not need another stats thread. It's already been established that there are people on here who:

1. Understand stats and appreciate that we can use them to improve our understanding of the game
2. Think they understand stats but actually do not, leading them to draw wrong conclusions and argue that stats are useless
3. Do not understand stats and do not want to understand them, as they prefer thinking about the game in the same way they always have done for the x years they've been following it

The same arguments between these people will just go round and round in circles...

Disagree. Two stats threads means a larger sample size. Therefore we're more likely to determine if the pro or anti-stats people are right.

 

[The Yinzer]

Not usually, but that's because it's generally discussed in the context of being a singular subject/lesson/class, leading to "Maths is hard".

Would you say "Religious Studies is hard" or "Religious Studies are hard"?

I would never have taken or spoken about Religious Studies.

(My singular/ plural verb question was just because I wasn't sure how people over there referred to it. Not any attempt to prove what was "correct.")

 

[VirginiaSpur]

Keeping a record to see how accurate or how bullshit stats are.

Chelsea have dropped 15 points from the original 10,000 simulator and Leicester gained 22.

Stats can never capture the elusive chance of environment, opportunity, human spirit or even substance of the number itself.

Wonder if we'll ever be predicted to be on top? Probably not, but will be sweet when we will be there at the end of the season and the supercomputer simulated 60,000 times + will have failed to have gotten it right.

October 7th (8)-November 10th (12)-December 16th (16)-January 25th (23)
01. Man City 80-79-76-74
02. Woolwich 78-78-77-75
03. Man Utd 75-76-72-65
04. Chelsea 72-66-59-57
05. Liverpool 65-64-64-61
06. Tottenham 64-66-64-68
07. Everton 57-56-55-51
08. Southampton 54-56-51-53
09. Crystal Palace 53-52-53-50
10. West Ham 50-53-51-56
11. Swansea 47-45-41-42
12. Stoke 46-48-50-52
13. Leicester 45-50-61-67
14. West Brom 40-42-44-44
15. Newcastle 38-39-41-38
16. Norwich 38-37-35-38
17. Watford 37-39-44-47
18. Bournemouth 36-33-37-39
19. Aston Villa 34-33-29-28
20. Sunderland 32-31-33-33

October 7th (8) -November 10th (12)-December 16th (16)-January 25th (23)
01. Man City 01-01-02-02
02. Woolwich 02-02-01-01
03. Man Utd 03-03-03-05
04. Chelsea 04-04-07-07
05. Liverpool 05-06-05-06
06. Tottenham 06-05-04-03
07. Everton 07-08-08-11
08. Southampton 08-07-10-09
09. Crystal Palace 09-10-09-12
10. West Ham 10-09-11-08
11. Swansea 11-13-15-15
12. Stoke 12-12-12-10
13. Leicester 13-11-06-04
14. West Brom 14-14-14-14
15. Newcastle 15-16-16-17
16. Norwich 16-17-18-18
17. Watford 17-15-13-13
18. Bournemouth 18-19-17-16
19. Aston Villa 19-18-20-20
20. Sunderland 20-20-19-19

 

[Joe Clash]

Religious study is hard.

 

[Louisiana Hotspur]

Of course they also use plural verbs with singular groups like sports teams.

American: Dallas is winning/Chelsea is winning/United is winning.

British: Dallas are winning/Chelsea are winning/United are winning.