Re: Last night's game. : Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:01 pm  

MjM wrote:

Re Amor, it's worth bearing in mind that when he actually played for Leeds he invariably looked poor, at best average. Based on what I saw I, for one, had and still have, no issues with letting him go. There is no reason to think he would ever have overcome his average-ness issues whilst playing for Leeds. Perhaps he is just better suited to a smaller club.

But that is less that half the equation. You're right about Amor's displays for Leeds hence the decision to loan him to Wakefield. That is where he really developed and looked clearly, to me, a better forward than all bar Peacock at our club. Obviously, St Helens saw something similar.

Had Leeds released him after his initial displays I'd have not complained. But Leeds were smart, they let Wakey polish the diamond in the rough. Then Leeds were dumb and gave him away.

Re: Last night's game. : Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:14 pm  

From page 7 - viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1396199864&start=61 tvoc wrote: There is nothing inherently wrong with the actual Opta stats used here for 2012 and 2013 once you identify which games are included and which games are not. Of course you would need to know this in order to produce accurate/meaningful averages just in case you wished to make a comparison between those seasons but I imagine anyone who 'looks at stats in detail' would already be aware of this potential issue. This indicates that the absolute completeness of the data-sets for 2012 and 2013 wasn't the key issue here. What was and remains crucial to the outcome is to know which games are included and ensure you divide the totals by the relevant number of appearances in each case. ThePrinter evidently didn't and consequently produced inaccurate results for all six players. And from page 9 - viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1396201916&start=81 tvoc wrote: Some of ThePrinters stats in question here are wrong. Because of the error (introduced by ThePrinter) all of the outcomes - in terms of the comparison between the 2012 and 2013 seasons for the six named forwards - were inaccurate. IIRC all the 2013 statistical improvements claimed were overstated - some to the point of actually pointing to a decline. This decline (unrecognisable from the figures ThePrinter produced) if anything actually supported the views ThePrinter was seeking to challenge. Despite ThePrinter's previous promise to post the corrected figures they are still to appear and the question of can't or won't remains unresolved. __________ ThePrinter wrote: So in summary, the 2013 stats aren't incomplete.... Do they include all 1st grade games involving Leeds in 2013? A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice. If 'no' then they are incomplete but as already explained in the examples from earlier above - for the purpose of your chosen comparisons it doesn't really matter that they are incomplete but what certainly does matter is knowing which games are in and which games are not in order to produce accurate averages in order to make the comparisons to the previous season. Of course it's absolutely crucial for both sides of a comparison to be accurate in order to get a fair result and the major flaw introduced by ThePrinter concerns the calculations he used for 2012. No amount of focus on the largely accepted 2013 figures will alter the false averages produced from the 2012 data-set. ThePrinter wrote: I do look at stats in detail, here's some taking into account a massive factor of amount of games played. No doubting that it was a massive factor and no question then that it would be crucial to the outcome to get it right ......but you didn't did you? You've undermined your own credibility in this area having assuredly invited the attention with your - ThePrinter wrote: but check the stats I've posted. All forwards improved in key areas in 2013. I don't say things out of blind loyalty, I say them because they hold some weight. But did they improve when using the correct calculations? Difficult to determine how much weight your view actually holds over those alternative views that you were challenging when the statistical analysis you used as evidence was corrupted at your hands. Will we ever get to see the previously promised corrected figures? ThePrinter wrote: Clearly not it would seem. The matter in question that I was referring to was whether or not you had made an accurate statistical comparison between the 2012 and 2013 season in terms of the named six players. You hadn't but for the removal of any doubt (not that any exists) no-one need take my word for it when there are these contributions already: ThePrinter wrote: I come out of this with some miscalculations ThePrinter wrote: I knew at some point they wouldn't hold up ThePrinter wrote: yep I got some numbers wrong ThePrinter wrote: I never not once didn't ACCEPT he (tvoc) was correct ThePrinter wrote: I've not had any problem that he found a problem with my stats. If someone spots a flaw with them by all means do tell so we don't get incorrect results ThePrinter wrote: Sure you can have an apology and a list of corrected stats __________ So perhaps it's time for you to finally post your corrected figures and we'll see just how many of your previous statements regarding the improvements in certain forwards in 2013 are backed (or disputed) by your chosen Opta averages.

From page 7 - viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1396199864&start=61 tvoc wrote: There is nothing inherently wrong with the actual Opta stats used here for 2012 and 2013 once you identify which games are included and which games are not. Of course you would need to know this in order to produce accurate/meaningful averages just in case you wished to make a comparison between those seasons but I imagine anyone who 'looks at stats in detail' would already be aware of this potential issue. This indicates that the absolute completeness of the data-sets for 2012 and 2013 wasn't the key issue here. What was and remains crucial to the outcome is to know which games are included and ensure you divide the totals by the relevant number of appearances in each case. ThePrinter evidently didn't and consequently produced inaccurate results for all six players. And from page 9 - viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563946&tsmp=1396201916&start=81 tvoc wrote: Some of ThePrinters stats in question here are wrong. Because of the error (introduced by ThePrinter) all of the outcomes - in terms of the comparison between the 2012 and 2013 seasons for the six named forwards - were inaccurate. IIRC all the 2013 statistical improvements claimed were overstated - some to the point of actually pointing to a decline. This decline (unrecognisable from the figures ThePrinter produced) if anything actually supported the views ThePrinter was seeking to challenge. Despite ThePrinter's previous promise to post the corrected figures they are still to appear and the question of can't or won't remains unresolved. __________ ThePrinter wrote: So in summary, the 2013 stats aren't incomplete.... Do they include all 1st grade games involving Leeds in 2013? A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice. If 'no' then they are incomplete but as already explained in the examples from earlier above - for the purpose of your chosen comparisons it doesn't really matter that they are incomplete but what certainly does matter is knowing which games are in and which games are not in order to produce accurate averages in order to make the comparisons to the previous season. Of course it's absolutely crucial for both sides of a comparison to be accurate in order to get a fair result and the major flaw introduced by ThePrinter concerns the calculations he used for 2012. No amount of focus on the largely accepted 2013 figures will alter the false averages produced from the 2012 data-set. ThePrinter wrote: I do look at stats in detail, here's some taking into account a massive factor of amount of games played. No doubting that it was a massive factor and no question then that it would be crucial to the outcome to get it right ......but you didn't did you? You've undermined your own credibility in this area having assuredly invited the attention with your - ThePrinter wrote: but check the stats I've posted. All forwards improved in key areas in 2013. I don't say things out of blind loyalty, I say them because they hold some weight. But did they improve when using the correct calculations? Difficult to determine how much weight your view actually holds over those alternative views that you were challenging when the statistical analysis you used as evidence was corrupted at your hands. Will we ever get to see the previously promised corrected figures? ThePrinter wrote: Clearly not it would seem. The matter in question that I was referring to was whether or not you had made an accurate statistical comparison between the 2012 and 2013 season in terms of the named six players. You hadn't but for the removal of any doubt (not that any exists) no-one need take my word for it when there are these contributions already: ThePrinter wrote: I come out of this with some miscalculations ThePrinter wrote: I knew at some point they wouldn't hold up ThePrinter wrote: yep I got some numbers wrong ThePrinter wrote: I never not once didn't ACCEPT he (tvoc) was correct ThePrinter wrote: I've not had any problem that he found a problem with my stats. If someone spots a flaw with them by all means do tell so we don't get incorrect results ThePrinter wrote: Sure you can have an apology and a list of corrected stats __________ So perhaps it's time for you to finally post your corrected figures and we'll see just how many of your previous statements regarding the improvements in certain forwards in 2013 are backed (or disputed) by your chosen Opta averages.

Re: Last night's game. : Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:45 pm  

2013

LEULUAI - 22 games played
Metres 1860 (84.5)
Tackles 416 (18.9)
Carries per game - 11.6

BAILEY - 14
Metres 750 (53.6)
Tackles 352 (25.1)
Carries - 9.1

DELANEY - 18
Metres 1480 (82.2)
Tackles 527 (29.3)
Carries - 12.3

CLARKSON - 23
Metres 1365 (59.3)
Tackles 575 (25)
Carries - 10.3

KIRKE - 29
Metres - 1474 (50.9)
Tackles - 583 (20.1)
Carries - 7.1

JJB - 22
Metres - 1867 (84.9)
Tackles - 681 (30.9)
Carries - 14.1

There you go, that's the first half of my amended stats......right or wrong?

Re: Last night's game. : Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:09 pm  

tvoc wrote:

No amount of focus on the largely accepted 2013 figures

But previously it was......

tvoc wrote:

The total metres and total stats for the two seasons are not comparable - BOTH are incomplete in terms of all first grade games played but the 2012 stats are MORE incomplete than 2013.

tvoc wrote:

Both were incomplete in terms of Leeds 1st grade games but in this specific instance the relevant part is that 2012 were even more incomplete than 2013.

Ooooops!

Re: Last night's game. : Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:53 pm  

Perhaps you need to go a little deeper than 'oooops' if wishing to highlight an 'apparent' contradiction.

The 2013 figures are largely accepted because whilst accurately described as incomplete in terms of all 1st grade games the averages that resulted at least were indicative of the data-set from which they were drawn.

_____

To your amended stat post: Assuming these are the previously witnessed and largely accepted figures from a known data-set, we're half way there just as we were when they first appeared on page 4 some 54 days ago.

54 days for a cut and paste, let's just hope the amended and comparable other half turn up before anyone loses interest.

Re: Last night's game. : Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:18 am  

tvoc wrote:

Perhaps you need to go a little deeper than 'oooops' if wishing to highlight an 'apparent' contradiction.

The 2013 figures are largely accepted because whilst accurately described as incomplete in terms of all 1st grade games the averages that resulted at least were indicative of the data-set from which they were drawn.

The 2013 figures are largely accepted because they were right all along.....your previous claim of them being incomplete was just pure and simply YOU BEING WRONG. People can knock me for getting something wrong too, but at least I'm decent enough to admit my mistakes. Shame some others on here aren't.

tvoc wrote:

To your amended stat post: Assuming these are the previously witnessed and largely accepted figures from a known data-set, we're half way there just as we were when they first appeared on page 4 some 54 days ago.

54 days for a cut and paste, let's just hope the amended and comparable other half turn up before anyone loses interest.

I think that happened about 40+ days ago. If only you'd have asked sensibly for a re-edit straight away instead of going for your John Wayne Loser Leaves Town plan.

Re: Last night's game. : Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:32 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

The 2013 figures are largely accepted because they were right all along.....your previous claim of them being incomplete was just pure and simply YOU BEING WRONG. People can knock me for getting something wrong too, but at least I'm decent enough to admit my mistakes. Shame some others on here aren't.

Do the 2013 figures from Opta include all Leeds' 1st grade games from that season ?

If the answer is NO (and it always has been) how can someone accurately stating that fact be wrong ?

One of us created a flawed comparison because they simply didn't understand the data-set used by Opta in 2012 as opposed to the one used in 2013 - for the removal of any doubt, that would be you - while the other merely pointed out that it would be foolish to attach any relevance to the outcomes of the flawed comparison.

ThePrinter wrote:

I think that happened about 40+ days ago.

No doubt but as long as you continue to hark back to this debate elsewhere within this forum there may be some who may care for a refresher (the last couple of pages should suffice) and wonder as I do if you'll ever post the corrected 2012 figures and see if they support your initial statements from around the page 4 area.

ThePrinter wrote:

If only you'd have asked sensibly for a re-edit straight away instead of going for your John Wayne Loser Leaves Town plan.

If only you had put some accurate comparisons up for discussion in the first place. If only you had put some quality effort in before telling people -off the back of stats you mangled - that they should

ThePrinter wrote:

but check the stats I've posted. All forwards improved in key areas in 2013. I don't say things out of blind loyalty, I say them because they hold some weight.

Perhaps it's about time you finally posted the accurate figures (those from 2012 comparable to the data-set used for 2013 - or reduce 2013 to make them comparable to the data-set of 2012) to see how much weight they actually hold - I imagine people will have long since drawn their own conclusions as to why the previously promised corrected stats have never appeared.

Re: Last night's game. : Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:30 am  

tvoc wrote:

I imagine people will have long since drawn their own conclusions as to why the previously promised corrected stats have never appeared.

Well I for one certainly have.................