Jump to content

Interesting "Times" Piece

Poggs

By Poggs,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

VectisSaint

VectisSaint

Posted
Posted

Written by someone who thinks they understand statistics and random behaviour, but who makes it clear right from the start that they do not understand it at all. Interesting thesis but completely flawed logic. By the way is it just random that RK has actually won 10 out of 13 games so far this season in all competitions (including 3 straight away wins in the League Cup).

Lies, damn lies and uneducated columnists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted
If the aim of that piece is to dissuade people, other chairmen included, that Koeman actually isn't as good as he appears, that's fine by me.

 

Agree. But the article is complete load of pompous twaddle. One big problem is that the author says we will regress to the mean as if finishing positions in the PL are immutable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bearsy

Bearsy

Posted
Posted
Written by someone who thinks they understand statistics and random behaviour, but who makes it clear right from the start that they do not understand it at all. Interesting thesis but completely flawed logic. By the way is it just random that RK has actually won 10 out of 13 games so far this season in all competitions (including 3 straight away wins in the League Cup).

Lies, damn lies and uneducated columnists.

 

This bro makes the point that winning 10 out of 13 games could be due, in part, to chance or for want of better word, luck. What he fails to consider is that we may not be over-achieving at all, and luck might be the reason why we ain't won all 13 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Sorry, but I have to delete that.

 

In summary, article says that random chance can make anyone look good by sheer luck, people read patterns in random occurrences, so in conclusion, it's too early to tell if Koeman is a good manager.

 

After what arbitrary game of the season does the author suggest it is no longer down to luck, and why does he choose said number?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Convict Colony

Convict Colony

Posted
Posted

Think Syed is hijacking the principles associated with this book The Drunkards Walk (please note this is not Bearsy's autobiography) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0141026472?pc_redir=1414130647&robot_redir=1) which I've read and is pretty interesting but seems incredibly false to apply to us given how we improved last season which was based on 3 previous seasons of improvement which could constitute a trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
Sorry you felt it necessary to delete article. I felt the article would generate intelligent debate even if it was twaddle.

 

I think it's more to do that it's a subscription based site, and copying and pasting stuff onto non-pay sites is probably a pretty big infringement of their t&c and could get this place in the ****!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
Sorry, but I have to delete that.

 

In summary, article says that random chance can make anyone look good by sheer luck, people read patterns in random occurrences, so in conclusion, it's too early to tell if Koeman is a good manager.

 

Why did you have to delete it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jimmy_D

Jimmy_D

Posted
Posted
Why did you have to delete it?

 

Because it's behind a paywall.

 

They make their money from subscriptions, so routinely search for the text of their articles and start legal action if they find it, to make sure the only way of accessing it is through their paywall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tpbury

tpbury

Posted
Posted
Because it's behind a paywall.

 

They make their money from subscriptions, so routinely search for the text of their articles and start legal action if they find it, to make sure the only way of accessing it is through their paywall.

 

It's gonna really **** you off if someone else pastes the text again!

 

I'll do another summary:

 

blah blah blah blah statistics, blah blah blah blah mean blah blah blah, tedious, blah blah blah, whatever

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brmbrm

brmbrm

Posted
Posted

Well if it is more "regression to the mean" rubbish then it needs a pretty rigorous statistical analysis, which I doubt i has reading the above. How about some significance estimates, hypothesis testing?

 

It also begs the question "what is our average points-per-game? Is it the same as Burnley's? Chelsea's? Are they going to both regress to the same mean?". Of course not, which is why the same teams are near the to each year.

 

if you paid to read that can you get your money back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redslo

Redslo

Posted
Posted
Calling Redslo, calling Redslo!

 

I literally have no idea if what he is saying is meaningful or complete sloblocks! Which is to say, why not buy lottery tickets and enjoy the teams success while it lasts.

 

I haven't read the article but I will try to do that. I will say that I highly recommend that you enjoy the team's success while it lasts without buying lottery tickets which are a negative expectation purchase except in very rare circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redslo

Redslo

Posted
Posted

I have read the article. Basically every thing it says is true, but I think the author's analysis is somewhat flawed and also misses the point.

 

Certainly, a 38 game season, even a symmetrical one like the one used by the Premier League, does not guarantee that the best team always finishes first. There is always luck involved. Man City finishing first by goal difference over Man U three years ago was not proof that they were the superior team. Major League Baseball plays a 162 game season and that is not long enough to ensure that the best team has the best record.

 

Likewise, Southampton's performance so far this year does not prove Koeman is a good manager. But for that purpose Matthew Syed is using the wrong sample. Koeman did not spring from Zeus' head last July as a fully formed BPL manager. There are years of Koeman managerial performances to analyze in determining whether he is a good manager. Presumably, that is part of what Southampton did before hiring him.

 

As for his attempt to compare the subject to investors and the fact that random results will appear to produce a small list of investors who have out performed the market--he is correct, but that doesn't mean that no one can reliably out perform the market over the long run.

 

http://www.bestinver.es/pdf/articulos_value/The%20Superinvestors%20of%20Graham%20and%20Doddsville%20by%20Warren%20Buffett.pdf

 

It is unlikely we can continue to play and win like we have so far. Regression to the mean is a real thing (and one reason why firing managers looks like it works when it doesn't). There will be bad luck, including injuries, but that is part of what sport is all about. In the NFL, the teams that get to the Superbowl are almost always teams that have been relatively lucky with their injuries. That doesn't change the fact that they got to the Superbowl and one of them won it.

 

Southampton could be a vastly improved team playing below its potential. Southampton could be an improved team playing at its potential. Southampton could be a weaker team that has been lucky. As each game gets played we have a better idea which of these possibilities is true, but we will never know for sure. However, instituting a process by which the club and its employees make good decisions as often as possible increases the likelihood of good results and it sure looks like the club has instituted that type of process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coxford_lou

Coxford_lou

Posted
Posted
I have read the article. Basically every thing it says is true, but I think the author's analysis is somewhat flawed and also misses the point.

 

The point he misses is that there's more to this success than one man. It's not luck, it's a fully formed and effectively implemented business strategy, that's based on various elements coming together as a greater part. Which makes the issue of luck or no luck a less dominant factor, and makes our ability to withstand a crisis, much stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redslo

Redslo

Posted
Posted
The point he misses is that there's more to this success than one man. It's not luck, it's a fully formed and effectively implemented business strategy, that's based on various elements coming together as a greater part. Which makes the issue of luck or no luck a less dominant factor, and makes our ability to withstand a crisis, much stronger.

 

I think that is sort of what I said. However, you can never completely rule out luck in anything--it just becomes less and less likely. Was Manchester United's success due to their financial advantages and the skills of Alex Ferguson or was it luck. Given that the success lasted more than two decades, luck is very unlikely, but it can never be ruled out completely.

 

Our five plus year run of improving results makes it quite unlikely that it is all due to luck, but it could be and it certainly could be partially due to luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted

Haven't seen article but many would think we have been lucky with injuries however ' Last year Southampton had the lowest incidence of soft tissue injuries in the Premier League, the clubs says, which is a result of their preventative care programmes.'

 

Not to mention our special oxygen washing machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...