Christ alive!!! It has nothing to do with stats man!! It is a simple analogy to highlight the difference between a prediction and a statement at a given time!! If it makes it any easier for you, go back to Schrödinger's cat - there are no 'stats' for that statement and outcome - the cat could be dead. open the box and the cat is alive - the original statement IS STILL TRUE. If you say the cat can't be dead and the cat is alive when the box is opened THIS DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT TRUE!!!!!!
You need to understand that a prediction and a possibility/probability are two different things. I think the probability on Liverpool getting 4th was quite high (ie we were contenders). Whereas i could also have predicted that they wouldn't come 4th - do ya see?!
Do you think Spain are contenders to win the European Championships? Probably yes. What if they don't get though the group stages - was your original STATEMENT (NOT PREDICTION) now incorrect? NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!! If you PREDICTED Spain WOULD win the European Championships and they didn't, your PREDICTION would be incorrect
I really am running out of different ways to explain the same simple concept
If i had good reason for predicting Spain not winning the Euro's, ie. if they lost both their opening games then that would be reasonable, as i cant imagine any country has won the tournament from this position.
Which is what the debate was about Liverpool. Spain cant be genuine contenders if the position they are in shows it to be extremely unlikely.
Talking of cats being alive or dead is just a daft comparison or analogy to use when talking about this type of debate, it shows us no realistic outcome or reason for that outcome.
Your Spain example is actually a better one. Even though they won the Euros 4 years ago does not mean that they should be considered genuine contenders if they find themselves in a position that a winner has never come from before.
If Spain lose their first 2 games, will you still have them as favourites to win, because of their hsitory?
'Talking of cats being alive or dead is just a daft comparison or analogy to use when talking about this type of debate, it shows us no realistic outcome or reason for that outcome.'
It's not daft - you just don't understand it! It is ONLY being used to highlight the difference between a prediction and a point in time statement (god knows how many times I've written that line now ). It is TRYING to highlight to you the whole point I am, and have been, making - i.e. the outcome has nothing to do with the statement - i.e. the final position of Liverpool does NOT prove your earlier statement.
' If Spain lose their first 2 games, will you still have them as favourites to win, because of their hsitory?'
No - but if Spain lose their first two games due to dodgy penalty decisions whilst dominating their games and other teams are playing badly and drawing thus leaving them within one win from topping the group. Couple this with a history of getting through the group stages every year for the last 15 and always starting badly but finishing strongly - would YOU right them off because ONE stat is against them?!!! Seems very odd to me! (PS I am not suggesting Liverpool were in this exact position - I am just using an example to show how different factors should be taken into consideration rather than just one - after all, records/stats are there to be broken!)
CutMe,
PS I am not suggesting Liverpool were in this exact position
=======================
Well i'm glad you put that bit, because this is the main point.
Liverpool were in a position that meant they were unlikley to finish where you claim they were genuine contenders to do so. This is why the final position is very important still. It proves beyond doubt what i was saying initially, afterwards, at the end of the season & now.
If someone or some team were not in genuine contention for whatever the goal is/was, then they are not/were not genuine contenders.
'Liverpool were in a position that meant they were unlikley to finish where you claim they were genuine contenders to do so. This is why the final position is very important still. It proves beyond doubt what i was saying initially, afterwards, at the end of the season & now'
Whether they were or weren't genuine contenders is a matter for debate - your opinion is as valid as mine. What is not up for debate is whether the final outcome has any bearing on their contention at the point of the initial discussion. It proves nothing other than your prediction.
'If someone or some team were not in genuine contention for whatever the goal is/was, then they are not/were not genuine contenders.'
That makes no sence! If you were in contention then you were - if you weren't you weren't! If you are in contention you are - if you aren't your aren't. If you were in contention doesn't mean you can't move out of contention at some point and visa versa!
I agree you can move in & out of genuine contention, but again Liverpool never moved in contention, and the way in which the season progressed, where Liverpool regressed, proves again that my theories have been correct all along, at the start of the debate, during the season, at season end, and now.
'but again Liverpool never moved in contention'
Now you really are talking tosh, we were in the top three at the start end of the first month and never moved out of the top 6 for the first 3!! However, I this is your opinion and you are entitiles to it.
'proves again that my theories have been correct all along, at the start of the debate, during the season, at season end, and now.'
Your PREDICTIONS were correct, your therories may have turned out to be correct - still doen't change the fact that at that point in time we were contender
CutMe,
Now you really are talking tosh, we were in the top three at the start end of the first month
=========================
You are claiming to be genuine contenders after 1 month, and then have the front to say i'm talking tosh.
Come off it.
Plus, didnt this debate start in January, so why is the first month even relevant (or the first 3)?
Quote: but again Liverpool never moved in contention
The word 'never' suggests you were talking the whole season! And why can't a team be genuine contenders after a month if they can before the season even starts! It's a live stat that changes as the season goes on - some will come into contention, others will drop out (as we did)
I'm not saying they couldnt have been in contention after a month, my point was more to do with the fact the debate was in January when, in my mind, and was proven, the gap was too big & was only going to get bigger.
Which it did.
What do you think of 'Arry going then? I'd be gutted, seems a very odd decision!
CutMe,
I'm fuming. Very strange call. I'm not bringing up old debates, but he reached 4th (our highest ever Prem position) TWICE in 3 years, then gets sacked.
Crazy. I'm very disappointed right now.
Crazy! I felt the same about Kenny, although that was down to the amount of time he was given rather than his recent success rate in the league
Who do you think will replace him?
Sign in if you want to comment
Defoe
Page 34 of 34
30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34
posted on 12/6/12
Christ alive!!! It has nothing to do with stats man!! It is a simple analogy to highlight the difference between a prediction and a statement at a given time!! If it makes it any easier for you, go back to Schrödinger's cat - there are no 'stats' for that statement and outcome - the cat could be dead. open the box and the cat is alive - the original statement IS STILL TRUE. If you say the cat can't be dead and the cat is alive when the box is opened THIS DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT TRUE!!!!!!
You need to understand that a prediction and a possibility/probability are two different things. I think the probability on Liverpool getting 4th was quite high (ie we were contenders). Whereas i could also have predicted that they wouldn't come 4th - do ya see?!
Do you think Spain are contenders to win the European Championships? Probably yes. What if they don't get though the group stages - was your original STATEMENT (NOT PREDICTION) now incorrect? NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!! If you PREDICTED Spain WOULD win the European Championships and they didn't, your PREDICTION would be incorrect
I really am running out of different ways to explain the same simple concept
posted on 12/6/12
If i had good reason for predicting Spain not winning the Euro's, ie. if they lost both their opening games then that would be reasonable, as i cant imagine any country has won the tournament from this position.
Which is what the debate was about Liverpool. Spain cant be genuine contenders if the position they are in shows it to be extremely unlikely.
Talking of cats being alive or dead is just a daft comparison or analogy to use when talking about this type of debate, it shows us no realistic outcome or reason for that outcome.
Your Spain example is actually a better one. Even though they won the Euros 4 years ago does not mean that they should be considered genuine contenders if they find themselves in a position that a winner has never come from before.
If Spain lose their first 2 games, will you still have them as favourites to win, because of their hsitory?
posted on 13/6/12
'Talking of cats being alive or dead is just a daft comparison or analogy to use when talking about this type of debate, it shows us no realistic outcome or reason for that outcome.'
It's not daft - you just don't understand it! It is ONLY being used to highlight the difference between a prediction and a point in time statement (god knows how many times I've written that line now ). It is TRYING to highlight to you the whole point I am, and have been, making - i.e. the outcome has nothing to do with the statement - i.e. the final position of Liverpool does NOT prove your earlier statement.
' If Spain lose their first 2 games, will you still have them as favourites to win, because of their hsitory?'
No - but if Spain lose their first two games due to dodgy penalty decisions whilst dominating their games and other teams are playing badly and drawing thus leaving them within one win from topping the group. Couple this with a history of getting through the group stages every year for the last 15 and always starting badly but finishing strongly - would YOU right them off because ONE stat is against them?!!! Seems very odd to me! (PS I am not suggesting Liverpool were in this exact position - I am just using an example to show how different factors should be taken into consideration rather than just one - after all, records/stats are there to be broken!)
posted on 13/6/12
CutMe,
PS I am not suggesting Liverpool were in this exact position
=======================
Well i'm glad you put that bit, because this is the main point.
Liverpool were in a position that meant they were unlikley to finish where you claim they were genuine contenders to do so. This is why the final position is very important still. It proves beyond doubt what i was saying initially, afterwards, at the end of the season & now.
If someone or some team were not in genuine contention for whatever the goal is/was, then they are not/were not genuine contenders.
posted on 13/6/12
'Liverpool were in a position that meant they were unlikley to finish where you claim they were genuine contenders to do so. This is why the final position is very important still. It proves beyond doubt what i was saying initially, afterwards, at the end of the season & now'
Whether they were or weren't genuine contenders is a matter for debate - your opinion is as valid as mine. What is not up for debate is whether the final outcome has any bearing on their contention at the point of the initial discussion. It proves nothing other than your prediction.
'If someone or some team were not in genuine contention for whatever the goal is/was, then they are not/were not genuine contenders.'
That makes no sence! If you were in contention then you were - if you weren't you weren't! If you are in contention you are - if you aren't your aren't. If you were in contention doesn't mean you can't move out of contention at some point and visa versa!
posted on 13/6/12
I agree you can move in & out of genuine contention, but again Liverpool never moved in contention, and the way in which the season progressed, where Liverpool regressed, proves again that my theories have been correct all along, at the start of the debate, during the season, at season end, and now.
posted on 13/6/12
'but again Liverpool never moved in contention'
Now you really are talking tosh, we were in the top three at the start end of the first month and never moved out of the top 6 for the first 3!! However, I this is your opinion and you are entitiles to it.
'proves again that my theories have been correct all along, at the start of the debate, during the season, at season end, and now.'
Your PREDICTIONS were correct, your therories may have turned out to be correct - still doen't change the fact that at that point in time we were contender
posted on 13/6/12
CutMe,
Now you really are talking tosh, we were in the top three at the start end of the first month
=========================
You are claiming to be genuine contenders after 1 month, and then have the front to say i'm talking tosh.
Come off it.
Plus, didnt this debate start in January, so why is the first month even relevant (or the first 3)?
posted on 13/6/12
Quote: but again Liverpool never moved in contention
The word 'never' suggests you were talking the whole season! And why can't a team be genuine contenders after a month if they can before the season even starts! It's a live stat that changes as the season goes on - some will come into contention, others will drop out (as we did)
posted on 13/6/12
I'm not saying they couldnt have been in contention after a month, my point was more to do with the fact the debate was in January when, in my mind, and was proven, the gap was too big & was only going to get bigger.
Which it did.
posted on 14/6/12
What do you think of 'Arry going then? I'd be gutted, seems a very odd decision!
posted on 14/6/12
CutMe,
I'm fuming. Very strange call. I'm not bringing up old debates, but he reached 4th (our highest ever Prem position) TWICE in 3 years, then gets sacked.
Crazy. I'm very disappointed right now.
posted on 14/6/12
Crazy! I felt the same about Kenny, although that was down to the amount of time he was given rather than his recent success rate in the league
Who do you think will replace him?
Page 34 of 34
30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34