Bolton Wanderers (h)

[everbrite]

And that proves it. Stats cannot be trusted to support a hypothesis.

  Well done Gustavo - very quick!

[TPFKA Marvo]

And that proves it. Stats cannot be trusted to support a hypothesis.

They are not statistics, they are facts.

This is akin to a debate between a scientist and a religious devotee. One presents the facts, the other when it can't argue them cries about belief, faith and trust.

[Ketteringcobbler76]

Very interesting stats! Its got me thinking who in the squad when they start a game for us has the best points per game? Now thats a task of interest for you clever clog statto’s!

[WasRambo]

I have to admire your persistence on this Marvo but the most pertinent fact was also said by you....

He's our top scorer. That should really end the discussion.

And you can go on about PTS and goals per game when he's not played.... 10 games is a tiny sample size compared to the games he has actually played

Those 10 games could have been against weaker opposition. I say could, you haven't listed them so hard to tell.

The only thing I really can't figure is why you have this disdain...

[Melbourne Cobbler]

They are not statistics, they are facts.

This is akin to a debate between a scientist and a religious devotee. One presents the facts, the other when it can't argue them cries about belief, faith and trust.

You might be right you might be wrong. Dont be comparing yourself to a scientist though. Thing about those chaps, or at least the respected ones, is they ensure the findings are collated and presented impartially to demonstrate integrity. The motives behind your bizarre voting strategy for the POTS probably cast a little cloud over your credibility.

[TPFKA Marvo]

I have to admire your persistence on this Marvo but the most pertinent fact was also said by you....

He's our top scorer. That should really end the discussion.

And you can go on about PTS and goals per game when he's not played.... 10 games is a tiny sample size compared to the games he has actually played

Those 10 games could have been against weaker opposition. I say could, you haven't listed them so hard to tell.

The only thing I really can't figure is why you have this disdain...

That is so funny (and expected). For when I first brokered this thought and gave an example at that time of just the three games people said that was to small a sample and you would need at least 10. Now you want more. I've given you the stats, 10 games, nearly a quarter of a season. So be it. There are none so blind that will not see.

[TPFKA Marvo]

You might be right you might be wrong. Dont be comparing yourself to a scientist though. Thing about those chaps, or at least the respected ones, is they ensure the findings are collated and presented impartially to demonstrate integrity. The motives behind your bizarre voting strategy for the POTS probably cast a little cloud over your credibility.

The facts are what they are. If they pointed in a different direction then that's the one I would take. I'm not giving you an opinion, just telling it like it is. My "credibility" doesn't come into it, it's the people that argue against the facts that need to be proven credible.

The example of a scientist and the religious devotee was just a metaphor.

[guest3667]

And he didn’t want an argument 😂

[Melbourne Cobbler]

The facts are what they are. If they pointed in a different direction then that's the one I would take. I'm not giving you an opinion, just telling it like it is. My "credibility" doesn't come into it, it's the people that argue against the facts that need to be proven credible.

The example of a scientist and the religious devotee was just a metaphor.

So in the games that Sam missed where there was an apparent improved performance on our part, what was the comparable standard of the opposition in terms of league position? Were they at full strength? What was their current form at the time the games took place? Were we at full strength other than the injury to Sam or had we the typical number of players out that we have experienced generally with Sam in the team? This is a sample of some additional data that may be required to draw any firm conclusions regarding the apparent improved performance without Sam Hoskins in the team. So as a result whilst your figures provide a limited view, I would argue they are not facts, but subjective opinion based on generalised observations. Therefore your findings "credibility' and your claims regarding any facts remain inconclusive, sorry.

[Gustavo Palcrice]

They are not statistics, they are facts.

This is akin to a debate between a scientist and a religious devotee. One presents the facts, the other when it can't argue them cries about belief, faith and trust.

When you collect data to a pattern it leaves the world of 'facts' and becomes a statistic that is then often used to support an argument. The argument is frequently flawed.

[DavCobb]

I’m just looking forward to the play off thread livening up with Hoskins missing. Promotion form.

[west stand oap]

That is not necessarily true, usually when Sam plays we play 3 up front in a 433 formation. Gape, Hondermarck and Leonard would have been in midfield and Hoskins, (instead of Appere) Bowie and Pinnock in the front 3.
Hoskins has played up front in a 2 with a 442 formation this season with Pinnock as the 4th midfielder but if we are playing with a back 4 we don't play with a loan striker in a 451 formation. So if Sam had played it would have been 2 or 3 up front.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

I actually really enjoy a lot of Marvos informative posts. I just think he has to be a little bit careful when drawing conclusions from them and then insisting they are irrefutable facts.

[Coolcat]

We do better without Hoskins. Improved performances means erm, improved attendances.
Over a ten year period, that equates to £350million...which could be invested into the NHS.
Lets drop Super (clue in that misguided name  ) Sam!

Just wanted really to say the Chiefs, their defence and of course, Patrick Mahomes were immense last night. What a game!
Last minute winner at Orient tomorrow anyone? 🔴⚪

[Melbourne Cobbler]

We do better without Hoskins. Improved performances means erm, improved attendances.
Over a ten year period, that equates to £350million...which could be invested into the NHS.
Lets drop Super (clue in that misguided name  ) Sam!

Just wanted really to say the Chiefs, their defence and of course, Patrick Mahomes were immense last night. What a game!
Last minute winner at Orient tomorrow anyone? 🔴⚪

You’ve won me over.

[DavCobb]

Improved performances means erm, improved attendances.

I hate to point out the fatal flaw in this observation. 

[Melbourne Cobbler]

I hate to point out the fatal flaw in this observation. 

Well done dopey, that’s another thread locked.

[TPFKA Marvo]

I actually really enjoy a lot of Marvos informative posts. I just think he has to be a little bit careful when drawing conclusions from them and then insisting they are irrefutable facts.

But I've not drawn a conclusion, you and others have. I've just provided the data.

I said right at the beginning of this, these findings do not mean Hoskins should not be selected, that's entirely up to the manager.

For me, they show we have nothing to fear if he isn't.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

But I've not drawn a conclusion, you and others have. I've just provided the data.

I said right at the beginning of this, these findings do not mean Hoskins should not be selected, that's entirely up to the manager.

For me, they show we have nothing to fear if he isn't.

But you haven’t provided the data have you, you’ve provided a small sample of selective stats off the back of a bit of a agenda against Hoskins, that included ensuring for some odd reason that he didn’t win the worthless POTS award “just to see if I could” and the ridiculous propositions around his missed penalty. You then followed this up on the latest fact finding mission with the rather dogmatic statement “there are none so blind that will not see”. Not exactly sure how you expected all this to be interpreted, but to claim you haven’t drawn a conclusion regarding Hoskins is a bit silly. As I said right at the start, you might be right, you might be wrong, but your anti Hoskins track record probably casts a little cloud over your credibility regarding your “facts”. As such you can present all the “facts” you like but a fair proportion of people remain unconvinced. Probably why professional statisticians strive to stay impartial, stops any ridicule.

[Ketteringcobbler76]

Very interesting stats! Its got me thinking who in the squad when they start a game for us has the best points per game? Now thats a task of interest for you clever clog statto’s!

Anybody cared to look into this off games STARTING only? It proves to me who are so influential to our team, i wouldnt put past Sowerby being top of the points per game list!