Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by VanHaal'sRedArmy, Aug 7, 2018.
The Luck Index
Look at them there, all around the boardroom table, spoofing away...
"Can you believe we're being paid for this?"
"Shh, someone will hear."
Luck index, for feck sake.
Heh, finally first and Liverpool getting relegated, dreams coming true.
This abomination is being discussed and roundly mocked already. A juvenile, flawed ‘study’
From 380 matches... they only used 157 incidents to come up with this table. So they deem there to be less than 1 significant potentially match changing incident in every two Premier League matches. Get in the sea.
study and luck in the same sentence id love to hear what is luck in football.
Liverpool least luckiest are they taking the piss
A lot of my Liverpool associates have been posting this on facebook and twitter...I haven't even bothered reading it.
The pick of the bunch:
"It's great timing for me after making a comment in the Sgt Shitcoats Spawny thread about how I thought the refereeing in the whiskeynose era was dodgy. That got waylaid by all sorts of tangential comments about respecting him and all that, but something I didn't mention there was the way Fergie used to look at a number of refs near the end of a game they were drawing and start pointing at his watch. Some games had 8 added minutes for them to score in. Looks like maybe they still have refs in their pocket after all."
There's already a thread about this here.
It jumps from -43 for Arsenal to -73 for Liverpool.
It guess luck includes dry pitches, referees, offside goals at Old Trafford, teams that don't play 'football' and long balls
Here is what we can establish from this.
Every injustice they have benefited from does not count
Time and space has to stop at the moment they go ahead or are winning in a game and that would be the final result(it's only fair)
If I didn't know any better I would have said that this is surely not a pool fan since it is an obvious attempt to humiliate them and make them look pathetic. Then I think of things like RAWK and the Alternate league table and it all makes sense.
Got to laugh at the expected goals thing as well since they use that to say "Hey we should be winning every game with these predictive stats" irony is they fail to realise that if they actually believe that then it surely means that Klopp is not getting the best out of their "steller" players with failing to win feck all time and again.
The underlying theme here which everyone seems to have gone unnoticed is that they think they have a divine right to win and everyone else has either cheated them out of it or have serendipity on their side.
An insult to all Juvenile and flawed studies in history.
To be fair, Liverpool were unlucky that it was a very windy day.
This is exactly why it’s such a joke. They should leave ‘studies’ to competent people. My thesis advicer would throw me out a window if I came up with some shit like this. Like someone else posted, they probably couldn’t believe their luck in being allowed to ‘work’ on this.
If this was showing the opposite then this forum would be loving it.
People always scoff at stuff like this but, I think we all agree our point total did not really match our performance over the season.
How were we lucky to beat Swansea it finished 4-0
Hardware would've crashed if Lampard was still playing.
U need to watch that game again because the scoreline was flattering to deceive.
You don't win 4-0 by luck, it's 4 bloody goals. Our late goals were also quite well constructed.
I am quite confident that they deem it lucky because Pogba 'should' have been sent off when it would have been quite a harsh second yellow (City get away with those fouls every game).
here's the extended HL
At 0:0 Swansea almost scored a fluke goal - if that went in Swansea would have gone full park the bus mode. They were already playing really defensively the whole match till the 80th min when the tried to go for it and opened up at the back - thats when the goals started coming for us.
I think you are wrong here.
So if Swansea scored a fluke goal we would have struggled? Do you know the implications of that? It means we would have been unlucky.
I think you are also missing the detail of us scoring from a corner at the end of the 1st half. Dead ball situations are much less affected by the game state than open play, even if Swansea were up and parked the bus that set piece goal would have probably happened anyway since we would be the ones attacking.
Hopefully we get the same next season.
And if Pogba got a second yellow - which he deservedly should have? what then?
edit: You should also know we're pretty bad at coming back when behind
This is just great prep for the boom-bust cycle. Meltdown incoming immediately after the first "wrong decision", and it will be blown out of proportion. Now with a right class case study to back up their claims of unjust, how is it not something to entirely focus on during this season.
Top notch stuff.
Ha, ha. You should be so lucky..........
Stats in football is getting out of control. This is nonsense.
Maybe you just ignored what I wrote since I already addressed that?
That was a debateable yellow card; it was at the edge of Swansea's box and we had plenty of cover. If Pogba 'should' have been sent off then City would get a couple of red cards a game since they do those type of challenges several times a game unpunished.
Liverpool least lucky. Did Klopp fund this study himself?
Business as usual then.
It's also not statistics. It's ludicrously flawed, invalid, potentially cherry picked drivel of the highest order. I'd quite possibly sack one of my analysts if they delivered this excrement.
So if we were lucky, why were we unlucky to be put in a position that we had to rely on luck?
Maybe they felt Pogba should have got a 2nd yellow when the score was 0-0
Most victimest team, surprise surprise
You lads remember Owen goals from 2010-2011. My how we need his numbers back in this squad...
Ok, so 3 people who are coders determine just by watcing the games which incidents are possibly incorrect. Straight away I have questions. How are they what is controversial? Also only 3 so that's roughly 126 matches each so not only is there room in error regarding if they catch an incident or not but also how they determine them.
From the thousands of incidents they randomly select 157. That's not a very big number and I don't think that if you're going to do this at all that should be randomizing a sample size but rather look at them all. Being random you could end up with every deemed incident from a single club and omit a lot from another.
Lastly a single person (a referee) decided on his own what was wrong and right. Refs aren't always right and even with hindsight they can disagree.
Lastly what this whole thing is really based on is this.
Honestly you could probably have gotten a better result by using Football Manager than this model. These things don't take into consideration the mentality of players at all. There can be such a massive difference, a shift in mentality when something changes in a match, be it a red card or a goal. I don't think these metrics can take them sufficiently into account. Does it take into account the difference of conceding/scoring in the 2nd minuted and the 44th minute?
Lastly they say this
Just watching the games takes up 26 of those 60 days or almost half the time. Take away the time spent sleeping, eating and not working and how much time are you left with? This increases the chances of error even more.
I hope the team that did this isn't doing it for their doctorate.
I'm a Liverpool fan, and to be honest, I don't believe this stuff one bit.
While I think there were one or two decisions that went against us, every side can have the same greivances.
The study doesn't account for bias in judgement of all the factors that cause the 'swing' in points. Further, simulation models can be highly tinkered with to give you the results you want to see by moving/removing variables - as far as I understand, which I think I do quite well considering I have a Masters in Math and make a good living from making simulation models
Given my backgrounds, the use of statistics and numerical analysis in football is very interesting to me; however, this accounts for some things that only people who live in computer labs would ignore - emotion, momentum and bias. Also its the University of Bath, while quite decent, its not exactly Oxbridge. (Yes, I'm a nerd, sue me )
Separate names with a comma.