Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
STATBANK & Applescore: Charlton 2-2 Blackpool
lancashire lad
Posts: 15,629
many thanks to the 96 Lifers who gave marks
Applescore: 6.97
Applescore: 6.97
11
Comments
-
Even accounting for half-point gradations, with 96 markers doubled, 1/192 is still significantly greater than 1/10,000, in which case the distinction between the Jones and Ness marks is essentially a statistical inconsistency between two completely identical marks. Which is impressive considering one was the other's replacement.2
-
Sorry Leuth, you lost me after the first 6 words, (not difficult), take it you are impressed with something regarding Jones and Ness...🙄Leuth said:Even accounting for half-point gradations, with 96 markers doubled, 1/192 is still significantly greater than 1/10,000, in which case the distinction between the Jones and Ness marks is essentially a statistical inconsistency between two completely identical marks. Which is impressive considering one was the other's replacement.
Agree they are weird marks, might have been better for Lancs to just have rounded up to 6.49 each1 -
ET6168
No - if there are equal marks to 2 decimal places I have always shown if there is a difference, I can’t help Leuth’s mathematical words, but hey it is all good fun so just enjoy 😊3 -
LL your stats and their cumulative story are a great and pretty accurate picture.
There is supposedly something called the ‘wisdom of crowds’ which is what I think you tap into.
Many thanks.7 -
Looks like if we could get to the 60 minute mark, all square we would be flying. Score 12 against 4 after that! Not sure what it shows, better fitness, strength of squad.0
-
Big shout out for Lloyd Jones who didn't pull a sickie despite being ill.
Bravo to Chuks Aneke because many of us had written him off because of his sickness CV despite believing that when Aneke's involved we rarely lose and he galvanises the team.
We snatched a draw from the Jaws of defeat because of Chuks.
👏to Dobbo, Alfie and Corey Blackett-Taylor for being consistent. CBT is scoring and despite being double marked can emulate the younger version of Antonio and cut inside on to his strong right foot and score.
That 5 players that are doing the business we just need the rest on them to improve by 20% and we may be contenders. Some need to improve by more than 20% but we live in hope.
The full back positions are still a far cry from a fit Solly and Wiggins from the champion winning league 1 side that hit 100+ points.3 -
0-4 between HT and the 60 minute mark is weird too.redman said:Looks like if we could get to the 60 minute mark, all square we would be flying. Score 12 against 4 after that! Not sure what it shows, better fitness, strength of squad.
0 -
The unimpressed, pessimistic, moaning-minnies counteract the easily-pleased, optimistic, happy-clappers leaving a pretty sound average.seth plum said:LL your stats and their cumulative story are a great and pretty accurate picture.
There is supposedly something called the ‘wisdom of crowds’ which is what I think you tap into.
Many thanks.2 -
Because we have got Chuks, the others don't?redman said:Looks like if we could get to the 60 minute mark, all square we would be flying. Score 12 against 4 after that! Not sure what it shows, better fitness, strength of squad.
When he has been on the pitch we have a net gain of 5 points. Obviously it isn't all down to him but you get the feeling that as soon as he comes on the players believe we will score.0 -
fail to I fail to see how Hector got better marks than Thomas. I guess Thomas is the new scapegoat. Hector gave the ball away a lot and we had another howler giving away a soft goal. He's living off his reputation.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
Seeing as people tend to mark to only one decimal place, doing the final scores to two dps is creating a degree of accuracy that isn’t there in the original data.lancashire lad said:ET6168
No - if there are equal marks to 2 decimal places I have always shown if there is a difference, I can’t help Leuth’s mathematical words, but hey it is all good fun so just enjoy 😊0 -
AA: I am just trying to show that one player has a higher mark than another- simple!1
-
The only way you get such a small difference in the average is because there weren't 96 markers for Ness. He came on as substitute and not everyone gave him a mark. Sorry, just one for the nerds, I had to work out why as didn't seem possible.Leuth said:Even accounting for half-point gradations, with 96 markers doubled, 1/192 is still significantly greater than 1/10,000, in which case the distinction between the Jones and Ness marks is essentially a statistical inconsistency between two completely identical marks. Which is impressive considering one was the other's replacement.1 -
I was wondering about that too. Thanksredman said:
The only way you get such a small difference in the average is because there weren't 96 markers for Ness. He came on as substitute and not everyone gave him a mark. Sorry, just one for the nerds, I had to work out why as didn't seem possible.Leuth said:Even accounting for half-point gradations, with 96 markers doubled, 1/192 is still significantly greater than 1/10,000, in which case the distinction between the Jones and Ness marks is essentially a statistical inconsistency between two completely identical marks. Which is impressive considering one was the other's replacement.0 -
Ness had 95 markersredman said:
The only way you get such a small difference in the average is because there weren't 96 markers for Ness. He came on as substitute and not everyone gave him a mark. Sorry, just one for the nerds, I had to work out why as didn't seem possible.Leuth said:Even accounting for half-point gradations, with 96 markers doubled, 1/192 is still significantly greater than 1/10,000, in which case the distinction between the Jones and Ness marks is essentially a statistical inconsistency between two completely identical marks. Which is impressive considering one was the other's replacement.0
