Tim Sherwood…gone \o/

[unit kaboom]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

One from me too if you all don't mind.

Let's say we play a team and lose 2-0 but we were the better team by far. Do you go with your interpretation or do you go with the fact that people counted the goals and have made a statement of fact based on that accurate count?

Your interpretation can tell you we did better than the other team, the people that counted real facts will tell you that we lost.

Give it up man,jeeez...thats ridiculous. Makes me think you yourself don't really understand the point you are arguing!

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Give it up man,jeeez...thats ridiculous. Makes me think you yourself don't really understand the point you are arguing!

I fully understand it. People are trying to suggest that the stats are not facts when they are. They are actual counts of things that happened, like the number of passes made or (as in my analogy) the number of goals scored.

Denying those facts based on their own interpretation of what they saw will always lead to flawed opinions.

 

[Nigeyman]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I think I am going to write a very strong worded letter to the premier league.

Its obvious that there are poor ickle spurs fans out there than can not handle such a long break of watching spurs play......check the last few pages.........we have had brains exploding.......star wars (my fault) PDO (piggy donkey Osterich) for all I know....Geordies.......social class....AVB again and gawd knows what else.....

Cant wait for Wednesday after the match now......at least we will be able to herald TS as a GHod or have a pop at him if he has been a little tactical naive. or at least comment on his new fashion.

To say the last few pages of this thread have been heavy going are akin to saying that bears predominatley do their whoopsies in woodland!

 

[Lost Mango]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Why not just say the main reason we're performing better under Sherwood, is Sherwood?

Or it could just be that the main reason we are performing better under Sherwood, is that he isn't AVB, and nothing to do with Sherwood in particular.

 

[Nigeyman]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Or it could just be that the main reason we are performing better under Sherwood, is that he isn't AVB, and nothing to do with Sherwood in particular.

dont be silly...if thats the argument then we should have installed grotbags, Rod & Emu as a management trio and still obtained similar results in six epl games.

I know sometimes people find it hard but credit for our recent upturn in form goes to the players and our new management trio!!!! sorry but that includes timmy!!

he wont be immune to critiscism if we lose wednesday so likewise he is not immune to praise when we are doing well.

 

[milo]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

One from me too if you all don't mind.

Let's say we play a team and lose 2-0 but we were the better team by far. Do you go with your interpretation or do you go with the fact that people counted the goals and have made a statement of fact based on that accurate count?

Your interpretation can tell you we did better than the other team, the people that counted real facts will tell you that we lost.

Of course, it is possible to show an improvement and still lose 2-0.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Of course, it is possible to show an improvement and still lose 2-0.

I agree - in fact, so does PDO! But people wouldn't deny a scoreline yet are happy to deny other basic counts of events - I find it strange. It might be better if those of us who understand them were better at putting them into layman's terms, something I'm pretty poor at. I do find that acceptance tends to follow understanding on a lot of these things though.

 

[benp]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

the question is; is Tim Sherwood actually just the face for Ramsey? You can't go at results or style of play anymore, so this is probably the best way to attack him.

 

[Pirate55]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I agree - in fact, so does PDO! But people wouldn't deny a scoreline yet are happy to deny other basic counts of events - I find it strange. It might be better if those of us who understand them were better at putting them into layman's terms, something I'm pretty poor at. I do find that acceptance tends to follow understanding on a lot of these things though.

Again you persist with this patronizing nonsense about your superiority in understanding such things which others less intelligent fail to grasp.

To answer your observation versus stats 2-0 example. In the games against Wet Spam and Saudi Sportswashing Machine at home, my eyes told me we were the better side in both games, yet the stats showed we lost 3-0 and 1-0. What should I believe in more?

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Again you persist with this patronizing nonsense about your superiority in understanding such things which others less intelligent fail to grasp.

To answer your observation versus stats 2-0 example. In the games against Wet Spam and Saudi Sportswashing Machine at home, my eyes told me we were the better side in both games, yet the stats showed we lost 3-0 and 1-0. What should I believe in more?

You should believe in what each tells you and not let that affect the other. I'm sure you wouldn't deny that we lost both matches, so why would you deny the other stats? After all, the scoreline is just a statistic.

As for your first point, I apologise if you feel patronised by my post - it wasn't the intention. Do you have a better explanation for people accepting easy to understand stats at face value but not the more complicated ones?

 

[Jordinho]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I think there's some exaggeration going on with regards to our style at the moment. We've looked good in patches, but we've also been incredibly lucky that our opponents haven't scored when on top and Ade having a ridiculous conversion rate. Our defense is still as fragile as ever, but now have less protection from midfield. This can improve with players returning from injury, but don't pretend that we've been amazing under Sherwood. We simply haven't. In fact we were terrible in his first games, but we're improving. That is why our coming run is interesting, because we've had a few longer periods on the training pitch, something AVB didn't have since pre season ended, to work on team shape and tactics.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

No you don't. Luck doesn't exist, random, unconnected events do.

Sometimes those random unconnected events all line up one way, sometimes they all line up the other. Most of the time they're scattered all over the place.

When you take out (almost) everything that's controlled, what's left is (mostly) those events.

You've just said luck doesn't exist then in the next sentence explained what 'luck' is.

 

[Pirate55]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

You should believe in what each tells you and not let that affect the other. I'm sure you wouldn't deny that we lost both matches, so why would you deny the other stats? After all, the scoreline is just a statistic.

As for your first point, I apologise if you feel patronised by my post - do you have a better explanation for people accepting easy to understand stats at face value but not the more complicated ones?

So, now you are saying that we should take into account, both SUBJECTIVE, opinion orientated, elements as well as OBJECTIVE, stats driven, elements? No argument from me on that score. I thought your previous view was that stats told us everything. Regression to Norm and all that ********. Quite different.

Regarding the "more complicated" stats. I thought I had already answered that question by saying that they are based on spurious assumptions and therefore any conclusions drawn are potentially fallacious. Consequently, it is ridiculous IMO to rely on them in preference to what ones eyes are telling one.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

You've just said luck doesn't exist then in the next sentence explained what 'luck' is.

Not really, luck has more connotations than simply the effect of chaos/randomness on events. People are believed to be lucky people, items of clothing are considered lucky, etc. All of that is clearly nonsense. What I described is that in truly random string of events, at times there will be runs one way or another.

 

[braineclipse]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Again you persist with this patronizing nonsense about your superiority in understanding such things which others less intelligent fail to grasp.

To answer your observation versus stats 2-0 example. In the games against Wet Spam and Saudi Sportswashing Machine at home, my eyes told me we were the better side in both games, yet the stats showed we lost 3-0 and 1-0. What should I believe in more?

Just about all people have a poor intuitive understanding of statistics. Intelligence might help, but on its own isn't enough to make a real difference. Even education isn't great as experts in various fields have been shown to make rather basic errors when faced with fairly simple statistical problems/thinking tasks at a frequency that's actually a bit scary.

What helps is specific training along with mental training in taking relevant factors into account before making a decision.

I certainly think there's a tendency to reject stuff like this without understanding it. Do you disagree? Do you feel you have a good grasp of statistics and the PDO concept and that it doesn't work?

You should believe in what each tells you and not let that affect the other. I'm sure you wouldn't deny that we lost both matches, so why would you deny the other stats? After all, the scoreline is just a statistic.

As for your first point, I apologise if you feel patronised by my post - it wasn't the intention. Do you have a better explanation for people accepting easy to understand stats at face value but not the more complicated ones?

The real test for the validity of a stat like this would be if it for example:

-Had predictive power. If you could use this metric to more accurately judge the likelihood of future results. This would be a massive task to correctly model and test though, I certainly couldn't do it and even if I could I wouldn't have the time for it.

-Was correlated with objective opinions of luck in matches. Say a panel of objective, knowledgeable individuals were asked to judge a large-ish number of games and say if they thought the result was lucky or unlucky for either team on some scale. Those numbers could then be compared to the PDO numbers and if a reasonably strong correlation was there you could at least say that those numbers, over a decent sample, mirror objective opinions of luck in games. This I think would be easy enough to test that even I could do it, but I certainly don't have the time or the available experts to do so.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

So, now you are saying that we should take into account, both SUBJECTIVE, opinion orientated, elements as well as OBJECTIVE, stats driven, elements? No argument from me on that score. I thought your previous view was that stats told us everything. Regression to Norm and all that ********. Quite different.

Regarding the "more complicated" stats. I thought I had already answered that question by saying that they are based on spurious assumptions and therefore any conclusions drawn are potentially fallacious. Consequently, it is ridiculous IMO to rely on them in preference to what ones eyes are telling one.

What I'm saying is that we should use subjective observations to form subjective opinions and objective ones to form objective ones.

There's nothing wrong with the statement "I think we're playing better football under Timmeh, that makes me happy." There's everything wrong with "I like ponies therefore we are not outperforming our SOTR". See what I mean?

What we see tells us what we think (always under the heavy influence of bias), facts tell us what is.

I'd like to see why you think the assumptions are spurious, and why you hold your opinion of that in higher regard than you do the opinion of a well-respected stats blogger.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

The real test for the validity of a stat like this would be if it for example:

-Had predictive power. If you could use this metric to more accurately judge the likelihood of future results. This would be a massive task to correctly model and test though, I certainly couldn't do it and even if I could I wouldn't have the time for it.

-Was correlated with objective opinions of luck in matches. Say a panel of objective, knowledgeable individuals were asked to judge a large-ish number of games and say if they thought the result was lucky or unlucky for either team on some scale. Those numbers could then be compared to the PDO numbers and if a reasonably strong correlation was there you could at least say that those numbers, over a decent sample, mirror objective opinions of luck in games. This I think would be easy enough to test that even I could do it, but I certainly don't have the time or the available experts to do so.

I agree with that, and also that few people would have the time to start putting together a forward-based model of results to test it.

Obviously any individual match has so many variables (many of them not 'luck'-based) that none of us could try and predict results based on it. I will make one prediction for the rest of the season though - our PDO will not stay at 1.3 (or 130 or 1300 depending on how you like to present it). It will regress towards mean over the rest of the season.

 

[Yiddo]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Who actually cares? Aslong as we win i don't care what the stats are.

 

[Pirate55]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I agree with that, and also that few people would have the time to start putting together a forward-based model of results to test it.

Obviously any individual match has so many variables (many of them not 'luck'-based) that none of us could try and predict results based on it. I will make one prediction for the rest of the season though - our PDO will not stay at 1.3 (or 130 or 1300 depending on how you like to present it). It will regress towards mean over the rest of the season.

Of course that is the easiest prediction to make in the world. It is like saying we won't continue to achieve 16 points from 18. If we did, we would win the PL at a canter!

What you or no one else could predict with any certainty is that we would DEFINITELY have regressed to mean under AvB. That is where a purely statistical analysis DOESN'T help predict the future.

Regarding the spuriousness of the stats, do they take into account the QUALITY of the chance and do ALL shots on target get lumped together regardless of whether they are 35 yard daisy cutters or 6 yard open goal efforts? If not, who makes the distinction? What metric is their judgement based on? See what I mean by stats not exactly being based on facts but on someone's judgement call.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I agree with that, and also that few people would have the time to start putting together a forward-based model of results to test it.

Obviously any individual match has so many variables (many of them not 'luck'-based) that none of us could try and predict results based on it. I will make one prediction for the rest of the season though - our PDO will not stay at 1.3 (or 130 or 1300 depending on how you like to present it). It will regress towards mean over the rest of the season.[/quite/]

Tim's win rate is something like 80% currently, so there is no way it will remain that high no, is this what some are arguing against?