kazza wrote:Good post Owzat, it is not about happy clappy or doom n' gloomer it is information and you take what you want out of it.
Owzat wrote:As for us having stronger/better second halves of the season than first :-
1992/93-2007/08
Liverpool - more points 1st half of season : 7
Liverpool - more points 2nd half of season : 6
Liverpool - equal points in both halves : 3
Liverpool : 1st half of season average : 33.88 points
Liverpool : 2nd half of season average : 33.31 points
Sabre wrote:What you do Owzat are not stats, as stats are science, but a collection of data (numbers) arranged in a way that say something negative about the team 100 out of 100 times. Which provokes the Excellent posts and the bow downs you like to read from the people who like what you imply. Which is nice.
But now, when you grow up and learn that when you make any study or research about something you will receive criticism, I'll bother to read your numbers again.
What I did here here is a criticism of the use of numbers you made. Quite frankly I find quite childish your introduction if that's what it caused it. Next time, try to reply my arguements, and if you're uncapable (which I think is what wound you up), move on gracefully and don't ask stupid things in your introduction.
Sabre wrote:kazza wrote:Good post Owzat, it is not about happy clappy or doom n' gloomer it is information and you take what you want out of it.
Good point. Owzat's introduction is aimed to those of us who don't like his numbers and disagree with them.
In the first place I think Statistics are a branch of Mathmatics I love, names like Poisson and Bayes have allowed interesting applications in medicine, and clustering.
What you do Owzat are not stats, as stats are science, but a collection of data (numbers) arranged in a way that say something negative about the team 100 out of 100 times. Which provokes the Excellent posts and the bow downs you like to read from the people who like what you imply. Which is nice.
But now, when you grow up and learn that when you make any study or research about something you will receive criticism, I'll bother to read your numbers again.
What I did here here is a criticism of the use of numbers you made. Quite frankly I find quite childish your introduction if that's what it caused it. Next time, try to reply my arguements, and if you're uncapable (which I think is what wound you up), move on gracefully and don't ask stupid things in your introduction.
Effes wrote:Sabre wrote:What you do Owzat are not stats, as stats are science, but a collection of data (numbers) arranged in a way that say something negative about the team 100 out of 100 times. Which provokes the Excellent posts and the bow downs you like to read from the people who like what you imply. Which is nice.
But now, when you grow up and learn that when you make any study or research about something you will receive criticism, I'll bother to read your numbers again.
What I did here here is a criticism of the use of numbers you made. Quite frankly I find quite childish your introduction if that's what it caused it. Next time, try to reply my arguements, and if you're uncapable (which I think is what wound you up), move on gracefully and don't ask stupid things in your introduction.
Uncalled for.
I dont care whether someone posts stats to say something positive or negative. At the end of the day, you can always reply with your criticisms of the stats.
But to get personal with someone who just posts stats is, in my opinion, quite frankly childish.
Return to Liverpool FC - General Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 105 guests
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.