|
Modus Trollens posted:
He supports West Ham so I don't think that would have done any good
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
Paperhouse posted:He supports West Ham so I don't think that would have done any good
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
He was on motd recently and was about a million times better than the regulars
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:He supports West Ham so I don't think that would have done any good just to let him know his thinking is right Ravel posted:He was on motd recently and was about a million times better than the regulars yeah they should just let well spoken fans do it its so loving dry otherwise I have no idea why its not held in a pub
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Modus Trollens posted:just to let him know his thinking is right His bit with Paxo was the dumbest thing in the history of television. That he is better than the usual pundits is a sad indictment on the state of football punditry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
Byolante posted:His bit with Paxo was the dumbest thing in the history of television. That he is better than the usual pundits is a sad indictment on the state of football punditry. well luckily no one brings up inequality on MOTD
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
the article he wrote about thatcher was just about the only sensible thing I saw in a mainstream outlet. Russell Brand kind of owns in contrast to what else is out there...
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
mynameisjohn posted:the article he wrote about thatcher was just about the only sensible thing I saw in a mainstream outlet. Russell Brand kind of owns in contrast to what else is out there... it was good but now he sees himself as a cultural arbiter and everything he says is important even when talking about mamchester pooshited i thought it was pretty poor effort this time op
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
well yeah he used the phrase "truculent gaggle of miscontents"
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Ravel posted:He was on motd recently and was about a million times better than the regulars I thought he was poo poo on MOTD, to be honest. He was funny and charming as usual, but his punditry was poor. I know that wasn't the point of him being there and I know the MOTD pundits aren't great, but it showed to me how it's not as easy as it looks. Shearer is poo poo, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Al2001 posted:A Closer Look At USMNT's Crowded Forward Battle. Guess who's at the front of the the crowd? Here's a clue: Lol at 24 he's somehow both a veteran and a player yet to meet his potential.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Last season, United was far from leading the Premier League in creating the lion’s share of shots, or shots on target. United ranked eighth of 20 teams in proportion of shots, and seventh in proportion of shots on target, according to Grayson; and seventh and fourth, respectively, according to Benjamin Pugsley, who uses a slightly different set of underlying numbers. (Soccer doesn’t yet have completely standardized stats — or, as, Pugsley puts it, “Football and numbers is really new.”) How, then, did Manchester United nonetheless lead the league in goal differential? By leading the league in shooting percentage and placing fourth in save percentage. Grayson calls the sum of those two percentages, multiplied by 1,000, PDO (after its hockey name), and he’s shown that it has essentially no value in predicting future results. United led the Premier League in PDO by a big margin last year. It did the same the year before, which at the time prompted Grayson to forecast a United decline — a year too early, as it turned out. So United’s path to the league title last year was a lucky one; its performance didn’t predict continued success this season. Sure enough, United’s PDO has declined from league-leading to seventh best, and that, combined with less-precipitous declines in share of shots and shots on target, has led to the club outscoring opponents by less than half a goal per game, compared to more than a goal per game last season. Not only did United convert shots, and prevent shots, at unusually high — and unsustainable — rates last season. The club also won more matches than expected based on its goal differential. United won the league by 11 points over Manchester City last season. It also had 12 more points than expected based on its goals scored and allowed. This year, it’s getting about as many points as expected based on goal differential. Was Ferguson just lucky last season, or was he able to conjure consistently high levels of shooting accuracy and goalkeeping even after his club’s edge in shots had eroded? On the one hand, his United clubs sustained high levels of PDO during his tenure. On the other hand, there’s some out-of-sample evidence from United’s Champions League performance, this season and last season. In Ferguson’s last year at the helm, United played eight Champions League games, yielded nine more shots than it took and outscored opponents by two goals. Real Madrid eliminated United in the round of 16. In this season’s Champions League, under Moyes, United allowed 32 more shots than it attempted, yet United still outscored opponents by eight goals, advancing to the quarterfinal stage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Babby Thatcher posted:Last season, United was far from leading the Premier League in creating the lion’s share of shots, or shots on target. United ranked eighth of 20 teams in proportion of shots, and seventh in proportion of shots on target, according to Grayson; and seventh and fourth, respectively, according to Benjamin Pugsley, who uses a slightly different set of underlying numbers. (Soccer doesn’t yet have completely standardized stats — or, as, Pugsley puts it, “Football and numbers is really new.”) 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Babby Thatcher posted:Last season, United was far from leading the Premier League in creating the lion’s share of shots, or shots on target. United ranked eighth of 20 teams in proportion of shots, and seventh in proportion of shots on target, according to Grayson; and seventh and fourth, respectively, according to Benjamin Pugsley, who uses a slightly different set of underlying numbers. (Soccer doesn’t yet have completely standardized stats — or, as, Pugsley puts it, “Football and numbers is really new.”) I'm going to start physically attacking these people
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Why do so many American sports fans have sever autism and the need to catalogue loving everything? The amount of stats involved in baseball alone makes it look like a GCSE paper...
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
ForeverBWFC posted:Why do so many American sports fans have sever autism and the need to catalogue loving everything? The amount of stats involved in baseball alone makes it look like a GCSE paper... Because stats revolutionised baseball when they started using them properly in a sport consisting entirely of set plays, and now they think it works with everything. It's why they argue Jozy doesn't need to chase the ball down, they don't play sports themselves and don't understand that concentration is a huge thing and therefore you always loving harass defenders and suddenly they make mistakes. Open play sports are holistic idg why this is hard but it would require Americans to admit "well poo poo we don't just get to do what we like without trying properly" so its not happening and this thread is the result of that. e; even in American football this applies! I watched that angry but cool guy who did a thing in the superbowl or something, he was saying "anyone who thinks good linebacks(?) don't get targetted is an idiot, I deliberately position myself badly but I know I can still get to the ball first". There are no stats for Interceptions After Mindgamesing A Bitch Up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
ForeverBWFC posted:Why do so many American sports fans have sever autism and the need to catalogue loving everything? The amount of stats involved in baseball alone makes it look like a GCSE paper... It's so deeply ingrained in American sports and how they are discussed and broadcast. It's so jarring seeing them try to foist the poo poo on football, where it has absolutely no place and never will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
I was playing a baseball video game with my brother and while the video game was kind of fun it just wouldn't stop putting stats on my screen. Like every player name was followed by ten stats that had acronyms as incomprehensible as DZ SiBoT, and somehow my brother knew what every single one meant and was saying things like "Ooh, this pitcher has a .388 PBO, I'm in trouble. Good thing my batter has a .600 BHTB, I'll hit two out doubles all day." Welp that's my baseball stats story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Baldo di Gregorio posted:It's so jarring seeing them try to foist the poo poo on football, where it has absolutely no place and never will. I once told this to a real life American and he said they will have a place because people used to say the same thing about baseball and possibly basketball and look at them now. Who is right, who is wrong? Like, whoa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
jyrka posted:I once told this to a real life American and he said they will have a place because people used to say the same thing about baseball and possibly basketball and look at them now. Who is right, who is wrong? Like, whoa. This is partly why the Jozy thread is so so so funny to me, posts where guys argue that because he turns the ball over 3.4 times per match (TOpM) he's good, real good actually
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Baldo di Gregorio posted:This is partly why the Jozy thread is so so so funny to me, posts where guys argue that because he turns the ball over 3.4 times per match (TOpM) he's good, real good actually The Americans arguing over whether TOpM made a player bad (because Wickham is obviously worse than Jozy because he just is) or good (Suarez) was where I thought it would peak. But then it kept getting better. we need to popularise FOYFCApM, or falls on your fat oval office arse per match. Jozy can be the metric. Jozy is worth one Jozy of FOYFCApM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
It may surprise people to know that over the course of the season, Sunderland's win percentage in all competitions when Altidore has been involved is 36% compared to just 11% without him. In fact, Sunderland haven't won a single Premier League game without Altidore getting on the pitch, taking just two points from seven games. May be that's a coincidence, I don't know. But may be it's time to also cut him a little slack and give him a little love.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
 Moyes, Moyes, Moyes Smoking weed, smoking whizz, Doing coke, drinking beers, Drinking beers, beers, beers, Rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes the blunts? We smoke the blunts! Rolling blunts and smoke the blunts
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:
At least Rooney didn't need any makeup
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Babby Thatcher posted:Last season, United was far from leading the Premier League in creating the lion’s share of shots, or shots on target. United ranked eighth of 20 teams in proportion of shots, and seventh in proportion of shots on target, according to Grayson; and seventh and fourth, respectively, according to Benjamin Pugsley, who uses a slightly different set of underlying numbers. (Soccer doesn’t yet have completely standardized stats — or, as, Pugsley puts it, “Football and numbers is really new.”) These are always the absolute worst posts. For me, it's the amount of effort these people must have had to go through to go through all the correlations between abstractions of abstractions to find some thing that is ultimately meaningless and then go onto write +500 words about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Olewithmilk posted:These are always the absolute worst posts. For me, it's the amount of effort these people must have had to go through to go through all the correlations between abstractions of abstractions to find some thing that is ultimately meaningless and then go onto write +500 words about it. All these things could have been avoided had they only played football as kids like almost everyone did at some point in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
mackintosh posted:All these things could have been avoided had they only played football as kids like almost everyone did at some point in Europe. I don't know. After finishing playing last week, and crunching the numbers, I really thought I should work on my DZ SiBoT. METHODOLOGY: SoT * ((.6 * Lg G/SoT) + (.3 * Lg G/SoT * BC+) + (.1 * Lg G/SoT * SiB+))
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Olewithmilk posted:These are always the absolute worst posts. For me, it's the amount of effort these people must have had to go through to go through all the correlations between abstractions of abstractions to find some thing that is ultimately meaningless and then go onto write +500 words about it. 500 words is for the birds, real men write whole books about it. the blurb alone makes me recoil quote:Why do England lose? Why does Scotland suck? Why doesn’t America dominate the sport internationally. . .and why do the Germans play with such an efficient but robotic style?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Why the U.S., Japan, Australia, Turkey--and Even Iraq--Are Destined to Become the Kings of the World's Most Popular Sport
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
jyrka posted:Why the U.S., Japan, Australia, Turkey--and Even Iraq--Are Destined to Become the Kings of the World's Most Popular Sport Crazed Ultra Supporters think they rule the soccer world and that 99% of all fans are like them. Not true. They fail to realize that "culture" is not a majority and even if 80,000 people are singing in a stadium that doesn't mean 75,000 care what the final result is. Euro snobs and South of Americans all truly believe they "know" what passion is. It's BS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
jyrka posted:Why the U.S., Japan, Australia, Turkey--and Even Iraq--Are Destined to Become the Kings of the World's Most Popular Sport i cant believe this is a real book that a company willingly published
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
TelekineticBear! posted:i cant believe this is a real book that a company willingly published I can't believe I read the whole thing lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
ForeverBWFC posted:Why do so many American sports fans have sever autism and the need to catalogue loving everything? The amount of stats involved in baseball alone makes it look like a GCSE paper... The stuff mentioned above and also because the sports lend themselves to statistical analysis. They generally have more stoppages in play and fewer significant events before someone scores.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Cpt. Mahatma Gandhi posted:500 words is for the birds, real men write whole books about it. That's an obscenity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
I love how they multiply by 1,000. Just because!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
mackintosh posted:All these things could have been avoided had they only played football as kids like almost everyone did at some point in Europe. lol imagine your average stats-wanker supporting his kid playing youth football. roaring at the other lads to pass to his son because of his optimal DzBOt and textbook hex sweeps or whatever
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
What I like about Prof. Szymanski is his son has no interest in football at all, and is instead starting quarterback for Oxford University. Really makes you think, imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Chris de Sperg posted:What I like about Prof. Szymanski is his son has no interest in football at all, neither does Prof. Szymanski tbf lol an actual quote from that book quote:-- "In 2002 everyone knew that the obscure, bucktoothed Brazilian kid Ronaldinho must have lucked out with the free kick that sailed into England's net, because he couldn't have been good enough to place it deliberately." (commenting on the English belief of freakish bad luck for their national team). quote:2002..obscure...Ronaldinho Babby Thatcher fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
Babby Thatcher posted:neither does Prof. Szymanski tbf
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:14
|
|