|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 29, 2019 15:19:43 GMT
Utter delusionš
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 29, 2019 15:22:31 GMT
Who the f**k is Stoke Analytics?
If you take the form of the last 4 games Birmingham are going to end up with 96 points and Brentford 95.
and is that also going to happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Oct 29, 2019 15:26:00 GMT
I suppose any point gained positively reflects our performances between expected and actual results, as I expect us to lose every game!  What a bag of dicks! |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 29, 2019 15:43:06 GMT
Who the f**k is Stoke Analytics? If you take the form of the last 4 games Birmingham are going to end up with 96 points and Brentford 95. and is that also going to happen? I really donāt know mate but the more they post on Twitter the more utterly ridiculous their posts become |
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Oct 29, 2019 15:43:20 GMT
Last 4 games, really? How about last 30, fat fuck.
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 29, 2019 15:44:53 GMT
Last 4 games, really? How about last 30, fat fuck. Fat fuckšI only started a threadšš |
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Oct 29, 2019 15:50:33 GMT
Last 4 games, really? How about last 30, fat fuck. Fat fuckšI only started a threadšš Ha, was meant type daft to be fair, I won't change it now though for comedy value. |
|
|
|
Post by Little Gary Patel on Oct 29, 2019 16:32:03 GMT
AAARGGRGGHRHRHR SCARY NUMBERS
something I don't understand, must be witchcraft. let's call them names.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 16:34:58 GMT
I like his account, don't always agree with a lot of what he says but the stats are fairly interesting.....
|
|
|
|
Post by stokie223 on Oct 29, 2019 16:45:47 GMT
xG is one of the most moronic things I've ever come across.
Stats paint a picture, of course they do, but football isn't played on paper. Far too many variables.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Oct 29, 2019 16:45:51 GMT
I like his account, don't always agree with a lot of what he says but the stats are fairly interesting.....
But stats alone say nothing, which is why they should only be used as a base point for analysis. It's the conclusions of analysis that means something, as the analysis explains the stats and takes into account all the variables, not just the numbers that are thrown down on paper.
So it's a shame that he clearly doesn't know how to conduct analysis.
For anyone to take just 4 specific games (not randomly but of his choosing) and exclude every other factor that doesn't suit i.e. last season's results and every other result this season apart from those, and then arbitrarily decide that's representative of our performances based on...erm, well, nothing and then come to a conclusion based on that is pretty much the exact opposite of "Analysis".
He should re-title his account and name it "Stoke Confirmation bias"
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 16:49:25 GMT
I like his account, don't always agree with a lot of what he says but the stats are fairly interesting..... But stats alone say nothing, which is why they should only be used as a base point for analysis. It's the conclusions of analysis that means something, as the analysis explains the stats and takes into account all the variables, not just the numbers that are thrown down on paper.
So it's a shame that he clearly doesn't know how to conduct analysis. For anyone to take just 4 specific games (not randomly but of his choosing...and exclude every other factor that doesn't suit i.e. last season's results and every other result this season apart from those 4) and then arbitrarily decide that's representative of our performances based on...erm, well, nothing and then come to a conclusion based on that is pretty much the exact opposite of "Analysis". He should re-title his account and name it "Stoke Confirmation bias"
In fairness he's been banging the drum all season about the stats suggesting we've been unlucky and should be higher in the table....... |
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Oct 29, 2019 16:53:19 GMT
But stats alone say nothing, which is why they should only be used as a base point for analysis. It's the conclusions of analysis that means something, as the analysis explains the stats and takes into account all the variables, not just the numbers that are thrown down on paper.
So it's a shame that he clearly doesn't know how to conduct analysis. For anyone to take just 4 specific games (not randomly but of his choosing...and exclude every other factor that doesn't suit i.e. last season's results and every other result this season apart from those 4) and then arbitrarily decide that's representative of our performances based on...erm, well, nothing and then come to a conclusion based on that is pretty much the exact opposite of "Analysis". He should re-title his account and name it "Stoke Confirmation bias"
In fairness he's been banging the drum all season about the stats suggesting we've been unlucky and should be higher in the table.......
Aaah so i get it then...
In which case he should just be honest and rename his account Nathan Jones. It's either him or someone smoking the same stuff as Nath if he thinks we've just been unlucky.
P.S Either way, if he's going to call himself "Stoke City Analytics" then he still needs to learn how to correctly analyse. He clearly has very little idea of what analysis is currently.
|
|
|
|
Post by durbanscircus on Oct 29, 2019 17:33:22 GMT
I`m struggling with this...I am being told that the first 32 games don't count only the last four? ...Is "he" actually a Russian Bot trying to influence yet another important western decision on line? ā¦..by conspiring to keep Nathan in post they know they are undermining the Christian religion in this Country as God is plainly "Not Willing"...the Christian faith is represented in this country by the Church Of England whose head is the Queen, therefore our constitutional monarchy is being undermined. If Nathan stays they win....which is more than we can hope for in the next couple of weeks
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 18:00:12 GMT
What he is saying a total load of bollocks.
Only the last 4 games are representative of our true form. Oh fuck off.
What about the Leeds game....that counts, doesn't it? We were wank. Totally true to form.
What about Charlton....that counts, doesn't it? We were unable to properly defend against a bang average side. Thats absolutely us all over for the last 4 years. Thats got to be true form.
What about Preston....that counts, doesn't it? Yeah we made big errors, but we were still totally wank, as we have been for ages.
What about Forest....that counts, doesn't it? See Charlton.
What about Huddersfield....that counts, doesn't it? A total and utter inability to break down and side that sits back. See Milwall, Wednesday and other other games this year.
There are two stats that are glaringly obvious.
Firstly, we are unable to deal with teams either away or at home who want to sit back and play counter attacking football against us. There are numerous examples of this both this season and last under Jones and Rowett. The reasons for this are blindingly obvious:
1. We lack any players who have sufficient guile, creativity, skill or pace to break teams down.
2. We lack real defensive pace. We are often caught chasing shadows on counter attacks. This has been the both in this division and the PL.
Secondly, we are able to match teams who do not play this way. Examples of this: Sheff Utd, Norwich, Swansea, Derby, Fulham, Leeds, Villa, Forest. We can match these as we have some good individual players who can create chances in more expansive games.
The problem is there are probably 6 teams in the whole League play the second way and 17 who play the first way.
Add in teams who also play a high pressing game (we have just never really got to grips with this) and you can easily see why we are fucked and destined for relegation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 18:05:13 GMT
What he is saying a total load of bollocks. Only the last 4 games are representative of our true form. Oh fuck off. What about the Leeds game....that counts, doesn't it? We were wank. Totally true to form. What about Charlton....that counts, doesn't it? We were unable to properly defend against a bang average side. Thats absolutely us all over for the last 4 years. Thats got to be true form. What about Preston....that counts, doesn't it? Yeah we made big errors, but we were still totally wank, as we have been for ages. What about Forest....that counts, doesn't it? See Charlton. What about Huddersfield....that counts, doesn't it? A total and utter inability to break down and side that sits back. See Milwall, Wednesday and other other games this year. There are two stats that are glaringly obvious. Firstly, we are unable to deal with teams either away or at home who want to sit back and play counter attacking football against us. There are numerous examples of this both this season and last under Jones and Rowett. The reasons for this are blindingly obvious: 1. We lack any players who have sufficient guile, creativity, skill or pace to break teams down. 2. We lack real defensive pace. We are often caught chasing shadows on counter attacks. This has been the both in this division and the PL. Secondly, we are able to match teams who do not play this way. Examples of this: Sheff Utd, Norwich, Swansea, Derby, Fulham, Leeds, Villa, Forest. We can match these as we have some good individual players who can create chances in more expansive games. The problem is there are probably 6 teams in the whole League play the second way and 17 who play the first way. Add in teams who also play a high pressing game (we have just never really got to grips with this) and you can easily see why we are fucked and destined for relegation. As I said earlier in fairness he's been arguing all season that based on Expected Goals (xG) we should be far higher up the table. Whether you agree or disagree is another story but he's been very consistent with that view....... |
|
|
|
Post by durbanscircus on Oct 29, 2019 18:09:13 GMT
Ive been expecting goals now for three years that haven't come
This is Horseshit...where is his expectation derived from- it cant be past trends can it?
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 29, 2019 18:09:14 GMT
But stats alone say nothing, which is why they should only be used as a base point for analysis. It's the conclusions of analysis that means something, as the analysis explains the stats and takes into account all the variables, not just the numbers that are thrown down on paper.
So it's a shame that he clearly doesn't know how to conduct analysis. For anyone to take just 4 specific games (not randomly but of his choosing...and exclude every other factor that doesn't suit i.e. last season's results and every other result this season apart from those 4) and then arbitrarily decide that's representative of our performances based on...erm, well, nothing and then come to a conclusion based on that is pretty much the exact opposite of "Analysis". He should re-title his account and name it "Stoke Confirmation bias"
In fairness he's been banging the drum all season about the stats suggesting we've been unlucky and should be higher in the table....... Which is bollocks of the highest order. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 18:10:04 GMT
In fairness he's been banging the drum all season about the stats suggesting we've been unlucky and should be higher in the table....... Which is bollocks of the highest order. Take it up with him..... |
|
|
|
Post by mamasgloves on Oct 29, 2019 20:02:32 GMT
The person that runs this account either has the surname Jones or is completely doolally.
Their unwavering sympathy for Jones was perhaps admirable at one stage months ago but now it just looks stupid and the lad blocks anyone who put differing views across and because he's gone full batshit there's no way back for him without him losing serious face. Went all in too soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by mamasgloves on Oct 29, 2019 20:16:43 GMT
AAARGGRGGHRHRHR SCARY NUMBERS something I don't understand, must be witchcraft. let's call them names. Your account by any chance Gary? A new poster regularly talking about stats/chances taken with a clear love for Jones and disdain for those who oppose him? š |
|
|
|
Post by Edward Tattsyrup on Oct 29, 2019 20:34:10 GMT
How about analysing where we are in the table and how many points we have. At the end of the day, those are the facts that will relegate us!
|
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Oct 29, 2019 21:43:04 GMT
Heās blocked me for living in the real world and not this fantasy world heās created for himself
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Oct 29, 2019 22:05:52 GMT
Some the stats are interesting but before these sorts of stats, managers were judged on their results, not their XG or balls like that.
There will be teams doing well with crap stats but do you think they give a shit? Itās a convenient tool for Jones and his supporters to fall back on. Just because we do certain things on the pitch that SHOULD mean the outcome is different doesnāt necessarily mean we are doing it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by chigstoke on Oct 29, 2019 22:12:39 GMT
Heās blocked me for living in the real world and not this fantasy world heās created for himself This wannabe Blades Analytics fella will not stop supporting him. Forget your xG crap, we've played 14 games and are bottom of the league with 8 points. We'd currently struggle to hit 30 points by game 46, that's how bad we are right now. We are staring league 1 down the barrel of a gun but it's okay, the table doesn't reflect our performances! The reality is, it does. Otherwise we'd be up there fighting. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 22:17:11 GMT
How about analysing where we are in the table and how many points we have. At the end of the day, those are the facts that will relegate us! Most mornings I sit in the kitchen in my pants and vest. I eat my porridge and toast, drink my tea, scratch my balls, and analyse 14 games and eight points.
Doesn't look very promising does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Edward Tattsyrup on Oct 29, 2019 22:19:15 GMT
How about analysing where we are in the table and how many points we have. At the end of the day, those are the facts that will relegate us! Most mornings I sit in the kitchen in my pants and vest. I eat my porridge and toast, drink my tea, scratch my balls, and analyse 14 games and eight points. Doesn't look very promising does it?
It's a total and utter fuck up. Again! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 22:30:53 GMT
Why people are getting so angry with the bloke is beyond me?
|
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Oct 29, 2019 22:39:58 GMT
Why people are getting so angry with the bloke is beyond me? Because people tend to prefer opinion to facts. Opinion is harmless, facts (i.e. the truth) sometimes hurt. that said, I have no idea how to define unlucky. Alan Ballās definition in reverse might be something like āI donāt know what unlucky is, but you donāt want itā. |
|
|
|
Post by tony1234 on Oct 29, 2019 23:27:06 GMT
The pinacle of forecasting.... was written up in a book called "Superforecasters" by a guy employed by the American Government to run a forecasting competition, after a 1bn foresight programme failed to spot market crashes, 9/11 et al. www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/227815/superforecasting-by-philip-e-tetlock-and-dan-gardner/For years, entrants would give their forecasts to questions like, "will Spain change government this year", "what will be the growth rate in Chinese computer sales?". Anyhow, 1% of the tens of thousands of entrants proved super at forecasting. And amateurs who used this were often better than professionals (because they wouldn't get sucked into myopic perspectives) In a nutshell, what they had in common was looking at problems from multiple broad perspectives and then reconciling the different answers. They'd used different past statistics - perhaps 5-10 different perspectives - to forecast the odds on the future event being asked about. So for the Spanish government question, for instance, they'd ask "How often does a government change x years after the last one?" "How often does a government change in the year after an economy contracts?" "How often does a government change when it starts the year with an approval rating of X" etc.... So, in the case of applying superforecasting to Stoke analytics, you might be looking at the odds of Stoke going down from here in terms of "How often has a team with our amount of points at this stage been relegated?" "How often has a team been relegated when crowds have dropped by x% compared to the season before?" "How often has a team been relegated when scoring X goals per game at this point" "How often does a team that finished 14th the year before go down the next year?" "How often has a team that the bookies have given odds of less than 5/2 gone down at this point?" "How many times has a squad that is valued in the top 5 of the league been relegated?" "How many times has a team been relegated that has changed their manager before Xmas?" (we wait!!!) For interest, teams who are in the bottom 3 at this stage have been relegated about 4 times in 10 over the past 10 years. On this stat, we are edging close to being 50-50 for going down. However, I'd suggest there are few times a highly valued squad has been relegated, so that probably lifts the odds back up again. Etc. At the moment I wouldn't bet on us going down! Not quite yet, but not for the reason SA suggests. |
|
