Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Notice how the BigSoccer thread has had stuff all replies? And Dan has the nerve to say they really know their stuff. Well, when you think about it they probably do, too smart to bother to reply to such rubbish!

Dan's probably thinking, "Whoa! No replies. If no-one replies, then logically they're not arguing with me. And if they're not arguing with me, logically it means that they agree with me. And if they agree with me, it means that they know their stuff."

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
I guess I should apologise, but the little f*cker ****es me off. As do you frequently with your crap such as...

Pots and kettles danny boy, pots and kettles.

Fairness in sport is most equitable when, in the event of a draw the points are shared. Whether you want to determine it mathematically is up to you, but sharing the points for a draw is the msot equitable method of distribution. To bother arguing against this is folly.

The points are shared, of the two points up for grabs in a draw
both sides get one. Surely someone with a degree in statistics should be smart enough to work that out. Unless they left their calculator at home.

You can averagre the samples. Add 'em up and divide.

And come up with a totally meaningless stat, the kind of which you are so fond of.

I have a friggin degree in statsistics, Dave.

So do I storeman boy. The difference between us is that in my job I use them.

But I'm not calculating overall winning percentage (and I never said I was) so you are wrong.

I never said you were, and I'm not.

I was calculating the average winning percentage that the team has in any given year. If the figure I get is 55% it doesn't mean the team has all-time win-ratio of 55%. It means that the team on average wins 55% of their games in any given season. This was calculated so that all seasons were given equal importance. That was the reason and method behind doing it that way. It's not just some figure that doesn't mean anything. It means that the team wins, on average, 55% of their games in any given season. That's what it means.

If you do it for seasons that have differing lengths without weighting them you get a figure that is meaningless.

I noticed that a 22 game season had more weight than a 14 game season when calculating a teams all-time winning percentage. Adding up the winning percentages from each season and dividing them gets rid of that "weight" problem by giving all seasons the same weight.

The weighting isn't a problem to anyone except you.

The probelm was you didn't understand. You thought I was calculating all-time winning percentage.

No I didn't.

I wasn't, and the sooner you understand that, the better it will be for you.

I understand what you are trying to do, you even said it yourself.
You were trying to find an indicator of a teams overall success but you didn't like the results you got from using a win/loss average. You didn't like the results maths gave you. This from the man who once claimed that you can't argue with maths.

Your "method" may well be valid in whatever loopy universe it is that you live in but in the one the rest of us inhabit it is nothing more than meaningless gibberish. Much like the rest of what you post actually.

Now I've highjacked this thread enough as it is so I'll let you get back to working on your reply to Richard regarding the change in scoring the the Italian competition. Unless of course you're going to continue to ignore him.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by moomba
Mmmm. A few pages back I chose to use ten years, five before and five after to assess the impact of the rule change on the comp, and you said this.



Must be the extra two years that make it a reasonable sample size eh Dan?

Gold

 

[Karanicolas]

Tennis ... Also unfair and inequitable

This topic had me thinking last night while watching the tennis as to how unfair and inequitable tennis scoring is.

1. For example why do you get 15 points for the first 2 points in a game that you win, but only 10 points when you win a third point. Surely, the third point is as valuable, if not more so, than the first 2 points.

2. And then when you win the fourth point you don't get any points at all, and surely, the fourth point is as valuable, if not more so, than the first 3 points. At most you may get a deuce and an opportunity to get an advantage.

It just seems to me that if we resolve the above issues we may be able to resolve the 3 points for win impasse as well as the whole Middle East question.

Let me have your thoughts.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Re: Tennis ... Also unfair and inequitable

Originally posted by Karanicolas
This topic had me thinking last night while watching the tennis as to how unfair and inequitable tennis scoring is.

1. For example why do you get 15 points for the first 2 points in a game that you win, but only 10 points when you win a third point. Surely, the third point is as valuable, if not more so, than the first 2 points.

2. And then when you win the fourth point you don't get any points at all, and surely, the fourth point is as valuable, if not more so, than the first 3 points. At most you may get a deuce and an opportunity to get an advantage.

It just seems to me that if we resolve the above issues we may be able to resolve the 3 points for win impasse as well as the whole Middle East question.

Let me have your thoughts.

What about the bonus point used in domestic one day cricket and the VB Series? Like, why should a team get an extra point for achieving the desired target in less time? Why should a team get an extra point for restricting the other team to a certain score? I mean either way, one team will win (or maybe it will be a tie but statistically this is unlikely). Why should teams be rewarded for the winningness of a match? A win is a win. There isn't good or bad wins, they are all wins all the same, all POSITIVE outcomes (+1). Why should teams be treated unfairly for not winning well enough? Clearly this is a NEGATIVE influence (-1).

I would like someone to argue this point - quite clearly you all know I am already right. You won't respond, because you already agree with me. You won't respond, because you don't have to, you know I am right. You won't respond, even if you think you've got a worthwhile argument, because you know I will DEFEAT you with stats and 'logic'. You won't respond because you know I will out debate you anyway. Give up now and save yourself the embarassment. I am right, you are wrong. 100% of the time. 100% of the time is all the time. That's 24 hours a day. A day has 24 hours, so this is 100% of a day. Every day has 24 hours, therefore, this means that every week I am always right. There are 7 days in a week. Therefore, 100% of the time during a week I am always right. Remember, there are 52 weeks in a year, so again at any given time during a YEAR I will still be right. A decade is 10 years, thats a lot of days and weeks, and I will still be right. You can't ever defeat me, you name the time and place and I will still be right. In the past, in the future, you can't stop me, i'm just to good. Even when the Earth is no longer, I will be on Mars and even though there is light years between us, I will still defeat you. Even though you probably won't exist, I will still have a better argument. Even though I will be full of bionic impants, I am still right...

 

[myee8]

Originally posted by Karanicolas
Damn you Diegoal, I was going to use the above as my own argument.

That should be damn you myee8, check out my post in page 5! :

Originally posted by myee8
What is hard to see in stats is how the game was played. Were both teams trying to get a draw or were they both playing for a win and the game ended a draw?

Why can't you just accept the rules as they are instead of analsying them to death? I spose you have a comment on the offside rule.

 

[X_box_X]

Re: Re: Tennis ... Also unfair and inequitable

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Therefore, 100% of the time during a week I am always right. Remember, there are 52 weeks in a year, so again at any given time during a YEAR I will still be right.

Wrong!

There are 52.142857 weeks in a year for 3/4 of a life. The other quarter (a leap year) has a total of 52.285714 weeks in a year.

BTW, Diego. Believe me, if I had my way I would fix up the Domestic cricket points system.

You STILL cannot seem to believe that your Soccer system is basically the same as mine. You keep falling into a dead end are resurrecting yourself to fight another argument.

 

[David O'Leary]

Given the attendances in the EPL in recent years, the 3 points per-win rule should stay, and isn't attendance figures what sport is really about?

 

[Diego Forlan]

Re: Re: Re: Tennis ... Also unfair and inequitable

Originally posted by X_box_X
Wrong!

There are 52.142857 weeks in a year for 3/4 of a life. The other quarter (a leap year) has a total of 52.285714 weeks in a year.

BTW, Diego. Believe me, if I had my way I would fix up the Domestic cricket points system.

You STILL cannot seem to believe that your Soccer system is basically the same as mine. You keep falling into a dead end are resurrecting yourself to fight another argument.

...plays a wild cut shot, takes a big meaty edge and is heading straight towards 2nd slip. Oh no! It's gone straight through him and down to the fence for four runs. Given how obvious that it was going straight to him, you think he would have seen it coming! Someone better wake up that slip fielder!...

 

[Karanicolas]

Re: Re: Re: Tennis ... Also unfair and inequitable

Originally posted by X_box_X
You keep falling into a dead end are resurrecting yourself .

What, Diegoal is the new messiah? Let's get real here.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennis ... Also unfair and inequitable

Originally posted by Karanicolas
What, Diegoal is the new messiah? Let's get real here.

Bow down to me oh humble simpleton

 

[Shinboners]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennis ... Also unfair and inequitable

Originally posted by Karanicolas
What, Diegoal is the new messiah? Let's get real here.

He's not the Messiah. He's just a naughty boy.

 

[Dave]

Blessed are the cheese makers

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by moomba
As Falchoon has pointed out, he stated that scoring has been on a downward trend since the 50/60's. I was surprised you haven't posted statistics to disprove that so I had a go.

1950/51 - 1959/60 season: 3.41 goals per game
1960/61 - 1969/70 season: 3.16 goals per game
1970/71 - 1979/80 season: 2.54 goals per game

This trend was reversed in the 80's. I wonder what happened then?

LOL, you're not serious are you? Going by your logic, games would be averaging 1.5 goals per game by the time the 2020's get here.

The ten (actually 12) years preceding the 3-point rule saw no difference in scoring. The 20 years since have seen no change. If scoring was decreasing it is likely that at some point it would reach a figure where it wouldn't go any lower. Obviously we would never get to the point where on average only 1.5 goals are scored per game - It is ludicrous to suggest that is even possible over 5,000 games. The botom line is that the three point rule showed no noticeable difference in scoring over the 20 years it has been in than it did in the years before it was implemented. For you to imply that scoring would have decreased anyway is total fiction and has no basis.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
Pots and kettles danny boy, pots and kettles.



The points are shared, of the two points up for grabs in a draw
both sides get one.

LOL, that's your logic? I'm not arguing tyat points shouldn't be shared dingbat! I'm arguing that a win should be double a draw, not triple. A draw is the mid-point between a win and a loss. That is fact. Anyone who knows anything can see this, and that the points should be shared (which they are.) The probelm is that in the event of a side winning, that side gets three points which devalues a draw. All matches should be of equal importance.

Originally posted by Dave
And come up with a totally meaningless stat, the kind of which you are so fond of.

I'll say this slowly. The stat means that the particular AFL team wins, on average 55% of their games in any given season. That's what it means therefore it has meaning. Idiot.

You do not or have not shown any proof that you are capable of understanding this. It is designed to show year-to-year competitveness, which is not as accurate if you use all-time win ratio because some seasons are longer than others, therefore not giving the most accurate guide to year-to-year competitiveness .

Originally posted by Dave
If you do it for seasons that have differing lengths without weighting them you get a figure that is meaningless.

I am weighting them, because I am using the standard percentage figure for each season, giving all seasons equal weight. This is the best method to find a team's year-to-year competitiveness. If it's not the best way to find year-to-year competitiveness, tell me what is.

Originally posted by Dave
I understand what you are trying to do,

No you don't. You ave not proven you have any knoweldge of the best way to find a team's year to year competitivness. No idea.

Imagine a team that has the following records:

Year 1: 20-0
Year 2: 20-0
Year 3: 20-0
Year 4: 20-0
Year 5: 0-100

This team overll winning percentage is 44%. This is a totally factual figure. However, that 44% figure doesn't accurately show how competitive they have been from season to season.

If we find the percentage figures for each season we see that the team has won the following percentage of games:

Year 1: 100%
Year 2: 100%
Year 3: 100%
Year 4: 100%
Year 5: 0%

Their average winning percentage oper season is 80%. That MEANS that on average they win 80% of their games in each season. The figure does not mean that they have won 80% of their all time games. The figure MEANS that they win 80% of their games on average per season. The figure is not just some random figure. It is a figure that MEANS that the side wins, on average 80% of their games in any given season.

You have shown nothing that proves you understand this.

Originally posted by Dave
you didn't like the results you got from using a win/loss average. You didn't like the results maths gave you. This from the man who once claimed that you can't argue with maths.

Bullcrap. The figures themselves are factual but they don't indicate in the best way to find year to year competitveness. The results the maths give me are fine, if one is looking for total win-loss ratio.

If I want a figure for total win-loss ratio, I will add up the total wins and divide by games played. I will be happy with the answer IF I am looking for all time win ratio.

What you don't understand is that in this exercise I am not looking for all time win-ratio. I am looking for something else. I am looking for a method which gives all seasons equal weighting.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Dan26


The above post is ridiculous. So what if there were a couple of rule changes? They were ON field changes. Off field changes are not as necessary, because no matter what rule takes place on the field, the end results of W, L or D will always remain. Why don't you ackowledge this? You know darn well it's true.

On field rule changes have absolutely no relevance to an off-field points system.

But (& I'm not looking to prove a point here but am genuinely bemused at your logic) why do you think it is relevant to say 'that it(2 points for a win) has worked perfectly well for over a 100 years but when I point out that for example that the goalie could pick up back passes for over a 100 years (& that even you agree that it's good that it changed) you say that this is irrelevant.
For sure on field changes have no relevance to an off-field points system but surely it has total relevance to the argument that just because something has stood for over a 100 years then that is proof that we shouldn't change it.Now i'd like you to admit that you KNOW that you can't pick & choose what rules are sacrosanct just because they've stood for over 100 years , it's either all of them or none of them.

Why change the topic, unless you don't want to argue the topic at hand?

The reason that I brought up those other points was to show that there are quite glaring cases where your knowledge of football on quite obvious points is weak, therefore the fact that you have been prepared to argue over an off-field rule (away goals in Europe) when you were not in possession of the facts (a fact that everyone else on here seemed to grasp) tends to show that your knowledge & understanding of football is not sufficient for you to be able to argue fundamental points with those who have a greater level of feel for the game,this may sound offensive to you, I don't actually mean it to but it seems pretty clear.

I'll be honest I don't really want to get involved in the whole 2/3 points for a win debate I've been there & done it, you quite clearly as is your right aren't going to be disuaded from your view point & I won't be moved from mine.

What I would say is that as has been pointed out this debate is not just about English football but football in general, the stats provided in regards to Italian football seem to make a very strong point(have you responded to that yet?Or have I missed the point & is this whole debate just about English football??).It must be said that in relation to other countries English football has not suffered anywhere near as much in terms of negativity, our supporters have always demanded attacking football & so I would expect the change to have a greater impact gloablly.

I'd love to. Arrange me a flight to England and we'll meet at Highbury to bash each other at half time.

It would be great wouldn't it?Although I feel the chances of you coming here are slim, I on the other hand am hoping to make it over there late on this year & if I do I will absolutely make it my business to look you up.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Dan26

I guess I should apologise, but the little f*cker ****es me off.

This was in response to this

Who the f*ck are you you little c*cksucker?


well I was just wondering, is this actually an apology or not?

Call me hard to please but if you're going to apologise for calling me a 'little c*cksucker' then it sort of defeats the point if you then describe me as a 'little f*cker', although I appreciate that there is some improvemnt in the terminology used.

I don't seek an apology but I'm just intrigued by what you actually mean by 'I guess I should apologise', I'm sure you'll realise that some on these boards would have been straight to a moderator after this sort of abusive personal attack & I'm sure you'd be looking at a ban which I presume would upset you so you should feel slighlty fortunate that I have no desire to see you kicked off.

The terms of abuse don't bother me but I'm slightly put out that you keep referring to me as little, it saddens me that in your mind you picture me as being small.

In my mind I picture you as being fat with greasy hair.

 

[Dan26]

Okay Dipper.

Whether I agree with your opinions on the topic or not, my language and demeanour was too harsh, and unnecessarily demonstrative.

No matter what I think of you, no one deserves to be spoken to that way. It was over the top.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by DIPPER
But (& I'm not looking to prove a point here but am genuinely bemused at your logic) why do you think it is relevant to say 'that it(2 points for a win) has worked perfectly well for over a 100 years but when I point out that for example that the goalie could pick up back passes for over a 100 years (& that even you agree that it's good that it changed) you say that this is irrelevant.

Because the back pass is an on-fied rule which affects the way the game is physically played. The 3 point rule does not. It is not in any Soccer rule book that I hav seen in the shelves. If you leanrn the rules of Soccer as a kid, you are taught how to dribble, how to score, how to tackle etc. You do not learn how to add up multiples of 3.

Originally posted by DIPPER
What I would say is that as has been pointed out this debate is not just about English football but football in general, the stats provided in regards to Italian football seem to make a very strong point.

The 3-point rule was introdued in Serie A in 1994-95. Over the last 10 years the highest scoring season was actually in 1992-93 when 2.80 goals were scord on average (with the 2-point rule). In 1993-94 (the last with the 2-point rule) the average was 2.42. In the 8 years since the 3-point rule has been introduced the average is 2.65.

Originally posted by DIPPER
...therefore the fact that you have been prepared to argue over an off-field rule (away goals in Europe) when you were not in possession of the facts

This is blown out of all proportion. In the dozens of 2-legged ties with the away goals rule that I have witnessed, it has always been obvious to me who the winner was. Most games have somewhat normal results where you don't need to look up the exact wording of the rule. It's just obviosu who the winner is. A 5-4 and 1-0 win to the same team has never to my knowledge happened. It is not normal, and seemed at the time to be one of those one in a million thgns that would be unfair. It's not unfair of course.

Obviously, the side that wins both games progresses, but the rule is still crap. You might be able to mount a vaid argument that the three-point rule encourages attacking football. There is no doubt it helps, even if only a tad. But no matter what you say no one can justify the away goals rule encourging attacking football.

Firstly few sides will base their entire attacking philopshy on the 25% chance that the 2-legged tie will be a draw (meaning the away goals rule comes into play). They will all have aspirations of winning. The chances of a 2-legged tie being drawn is remote enough for a side to not base their attackign philopshy on it. Secondly, even if they do base their attacking philosophy on the chance of a draw (knowing the away goals are more important) they still spend half of the 180 minutes as the home team where their goals are less important, anyway!! And thirdly in addition to that, the rule means that a side can win despite being level on goals and having not defeated or outplayed their opponent!

I'm not totally against the 3-point rule. I prefer 2 because it's fairer, but I can see some potential benefit. But the away goals rule is probably the dumbest rule in any sport anywhere. And as a follower of all sports around the globe I have never seen a more stupid rule.

 

[colin]

colin steps up to the plate....

Originally posted by Dan26
Because the back pass is an on-fied rule which affects the way the game is physically played. The 3 point rule does not. It is not in any Soccer rule book that I hav seen in the shelves. If you leanrn the rules of Soccer as a kid, you are taught how to dribble, how to score, how to tackle etc. You do not learn how to add up multiples of 3.

Wrong. It does affect the way soccer is played. You see, soccer is such a tactical game, that the way a team plays is greatly determined by its attitude going out on to the park.

Let's leave the statistics aside for a moment. It doesn't take a genius to see that teams' attitudes under the 3 point rule are much more positive to the 2 point rule. Do you agree?

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Dan26
Okay Dipper.

Whether I agree with your opinions on the topic or not, my language and demeanour was too harsh, and unnecessarily demonstrative.

No matter what I think of you, no one deserves to be spoken to that way. It was over the top.

Well said, I respect you for saying that although you must have accidently deleted the bit where you said sorry.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Dan26
Because the back pass is an on-fied rule which affects the way the game is physically played. The 3 point rule does not. It is not in any Soccer rule book that I hav seen in the shelves. If you leanrn the rules of Soccer as a kid, you are taught how to dribble, how to score, how to tackle etc. You do not learn how to add up multiples of 3.

Well this doesn't answer the question, you said that the 3 point rule had worked well for over 100 years why change it?That was your argument, the fact that it had remained in place for so long.Why is this different to on the field rules staying in place for over 100 years, in fact I would arugue that there is less justification in changing actual on the field rules that have been in use for 100+ years than off the field scoring systems, I mean should we never change how many clubs are relegated & promoted, is that wrong.

The 3-point rule was introdued in Serie A in 1994-95. Over the last 10 years the highest scoring season was actually in 1992-93 when 2.80 goals were scord on average (with the 2-point rule). In 1993-94 (the last with the 2-point rule) the average was 2.42. In the 8 years since the 3-point rule has been introduced the average is 2.65.

You quoted the English top division scoring averages per game for a number of years before & after the change was made & said that the small increase that occured was irrelevant so I don't think it's fair to pluck out 1 season (92/93).If as you say the average in the 8 years is 2.65 then this compares well with the 2.1 goals of 82/83, but we need to see averages from Italy of maybe the 20 years before the change.I can't find the averages but just looking at the league tables from Italy from 1975-1985 it was very rare fora side to hit 50 league goals, if you look at the last 5 years then lots of sides are doing it, this can't all be put down to 3 points for a win but I would suggest it's a major factor.

But the away goals rule is probably the dumbest rule in any sport anywhere

OK I'm not going to argue the away goals rule, I think it has less merit than 3 points for a win, there was definitely a good reason for bringing it in at the time(many sides aimed for a draw away from home) whether the reasons are still there now I'm not entirely sure, maybe it should be kept maybe it shouldn't.But my point was that you launched a tirade against it under the misapprehension that away goals really did count for double & when this was pointed out to you to be wrong you just continued attacking the system anyway,it showed a tendency to jump in and argue about something that you didn't know about with people that did.

I'm not totally against the 3-point rule. I prefer 2 because it's fairer, but I can see some potential benefit.

So why didn't you say this before, this is the sort of statement that encourages a reasonable & rational debate, it shows an ability to see the picture from both sides.If you'd have started this thread & the previous one in this vein then I wouldn't have felt the need to launch a stinging attack back, you're entitled to your opinion as am I but what gets me worked up is when you debate what is essentially a matter of opinion as if it is a right or wrong argument & that you're right (& by default I & many other people are wrong).
You know I absolutely can't argue with this statement but when you try to make some mathematical argement that 'proves' that it is 'wrong' for a win to be worth 3 times that of a draw when ' a draw is the mid point between a win & a loss' then I can't help getting exasperated & posting in a provocative manner.Really for me the crux of the argument isn't to what degree if any 3 points for a win encourages attacking football & the scoring of goals it's the fact that you try to argue that it is 'mathematically wrong' , maybe you don't agree with it but accept that it basically comes down to an opinion not the rule makers being guilty of a mistake.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
LOL, you're not serious are you? Going by your logic, games would be averaging 1.5 goals per game by the time the 2020's get here.

It's pretty simple really Dan. Falchoon said that scoring has been on the decrease since the 50's, you said that was untrue, and a figment of his (and my) imagination. You have got the stats that show that scoring was indeed on a downward trend from the 50's through to the start of the 80's, I wouldn't have thought there was room for anymore discussion on the matter other than you being man enough to admit you were wrong on this one.

The ten (actually 12) years preceding the 3-point rule saw no difference in scoring. The 20 years since have seen no change. If scoring was decreasing it is likely that at some point it would reach a figure where it wouldn't go any lower. Obviously we would never get to the point where on average only 1.5 goals are scored per game - It is ludicrous to suggest that is even possible over 5,000 games. The botom line is that the three point rule showed no noticeable difference in scoring over the 20 years it has been in than it did in the years before it was implemented.

I will wait until you respond to my question asking why your sample size of 12 years is entirely relevant, while according to you no-one cares about my little selective sample size of just 10 years. I wouldn't want to post until I am in possession of the full facts on this one.

For you to imply that scoring would have decreased anyway is total fiction and has no basis.

For you to imply any different is total fiction and has no basis.

Moomba

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by moomba
I wouldn't have thought there was room for anymore discussion on the matter other than you being man enough to admit you were wrong on this one.

Don't hold yer breath.

Originally posted by Dan26
All matches should be of equal importance.

All matches are, it's up to the teams as to whether they get all the points or not. What you mean is that you think all matches should have the same number of points up for grabs regardless of the result.

I'll say this slowly. The stat means that the particular AFL team wins, on average 55% of their games in any given season. That's what it means therefore it has meaning. Idiot.

I'll say this slowly. Averaging % from different sized samples without applying a weighting produces a figures that is statistically meaningless. Cheesedick.

A real world example instead of the fantasies you are so fond of.

*disclaimer* the following is in no way indicative of my political preference and is simply an example.

In the recent vote on the offer Grocon made to it's employees, workers were divided up into four companies. 3 of them voted roughly 3-1 against - 75%-25%. One voted 100% for. Usuing your method we would have an average % vote "for" per company of 43%. A meaningless figure when you find that the company that voted 100% for had twoemployees, compared to the others which numbered in the hundreds. A figure that is in no way indicative of the "competitiveness" of the vote.

You do not or have not shown any proof that you are capable of understanding this.

Despite numerous others stating that I do.

It is designed to show year-to-year competitveness, which is not as accurate if you use all-time win ratio because some seasons are longer than others, therefore not giving the most accurate guide to year-to-year competitiveness .

What it's designed to do is irrelevant as the method is invalid.

I am weighting them, because I am using the standard percentage figure for each season, giving all seasons equal weight.

Giving all samples equal weight means you are not weighting them. Idiot.

This is the best method to find a team's year-to-year competitiveness.

No it isn't. It's what you think is the best method.

If it's not the best way to find year-to-year competitiveness, tell me what is.

I've already provided you with two alternatives that I think are better. Didn't you read the answer the first time?

Bullcrap.

No bullcrap, you said it.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Dan26


Firstly few sides will base their entire attacking philopshy on the 25% chance that the 2-legged tie will be a draw .

This sums up your whole philosphy.

How is a draw a 25% possibility?

any combined result of a two leg game, is very difficult to work out even on a statistcal basis.

if the first leg is a 5-1 result, what are the chances of a 4-0 result in the second. its all too complicated.

Isn't that like saying I have a 50% chance of winning the lottery.

I will or I won't.

Lets say it is 25% for a moment

Do you think in a two leg match between Liverpool and Adelaide City there is the same chance of a draw as in a match between Liverpool and Man Utd.

I don't think so.

You really on pointless statistics too much.

Of course not. Garbage.