table starting to take shape?

[Darren]

Things do not even themselves out over and season this is where Matt Bianco's argument falls down. It is quite funny that the example he chooses perfectly illustrates that we were very lucky to go down from the Premiership. The league table did in fact lie that year, as we had no luck whatsoever and West Ham got all the luck. Last season Wednesday were lucky to pip us to 2nd (they got some very flukey results, we had our start striker sent down etc) and therefore the league table lied then (we should have finished 2nd). Random chance chose Ched Evans trial to be with 3 games to go. A week later and we would probably have already been promoted.

It is perfectly feasible that a team can be very unlucky all season (or longer). It would only even itself out if they played infinitely. A team could have 80% possession, goals disallowed, hit the woodwork, other keeper plays a blinder and thoroughly deserve to win the game and yet lose. This could happen to them 4 or 5 times and there is nothing to say that it will go for them (that is the same thing happen to other teams).

I am not saying that there is a better way of doing things than the league table. I am just saying it contains randomness.

I am guessing we will not be able to take this back to talking about the current league table and whther it is likely to stay like this?

This all discussion about the league table "lying" is actually nonsensical. The league table cannot lie as it is a record of results that happened in various football matches where 3 points was awarded for a win and 1 for a draw. It completely and 100% accurately reflects what happened in those matches.

What I think you are trying to say isthat judging whether team A is better and than team B on the 3 points/1 points 46 matches basis is an imperfect means of assessing that. Well, of course it is. But then any method would be imperfect and potentially contestable.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Jesus, are we back on this argument again?

 

[moDtheGod]

It completely and 100% accurately reflects what happened in those matches.

It reflects the official final score, yes. It pays no attention to what actually happened though. What about that game where a goal was given without the ball even going in the goal (Watford and Reading, was it?)

Did the league table reflect that accurately? Or was it presenting a false record of what happened, or in other words, lying?

 

[Darren]

It reflects the official final score, yes. It pays no attention to what actually happened though. What about that game where a goal was given without the ball even going in the goal (Watford and Reading, was it?)

Did the league table reflect that accurately? Or was it presenting a false record of what happened, or in other words, lying?

If we are talking semantics, I would say it was the score in the individal game that did not reflect emprical reality rather than the league table (I think using the word "lie" is completely wrong as a lie is defined as a person deliberately telling an untruth).

Anyway, such occurences are vanishingly small.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Anyway, such occurences are vanishingly small.

But can be critical....

 

[Grecian2000]

Jesus, are we back on this argument again?

Indeed.

This thread was going swimmingly (as much as any of Olly's can) until 4am when in a moment of insomniacal madness Shorehamview dragged up an Ollyism from decades ago (probably moments before cackling himself back to sleep) and started the whole thing back up. Bastard

 

[moDtheGod]

If we are talking semantics, I would say it was the score in the individal game that did not reflect emprical reality rather than the league table

You are talking semantics, yes. You're being ridiculously picky. Its true that if you tell a lie and I report it as fact, I am not actually lying. Well done, you can have that one. So it's actually the scoreline that's incorrect in the above example, and all the league table is doing is reflecting the untruth of the scoreline.

But the phrase that is commonly heard is "the league table doesn't lie". Jesus wept.

Anyway, such occurences are vanishingly small.

That particular example is rare, yes. But what about all the other, more minor decisions that occur during a game? Lots of minor things added up can swing a game.

 

[Bladesway]

Your post started so well. However the last para is simply not true and writing things in capitals simply does not make it a more accurate point. Question Bladesway: Do you believe that after every game of football the result reflects exactly what the 2 teams deserve?

At the end of the season, the best team gets promoted and the worst one gets relegated, what happens in between is what makes that conclusion true. So yes, the league table is the truest representation as to how good a team is.

 

[Ollessendro]

If we are talking semantics, I would say it was the score in the individal game that did not reflect emprical reality rather than the league table (I think using the word "lie" is completely wrong as a lie is defined as a person deliberately telling an untruth).

Anyway, such occurences are vanishingly small.

As much as it pains me to admit it, I do see Darren's point of view. But I don't think you actually really disagree do you Dazzler, you just think the term 'lie' is strong? The league table does not reflect whether teams deserved to win (for example taking into account poor decisions, luck, stats etc) and therefore does not represent what the result should have been. We're not just talking about extreme examples (like when Palace scored and the ref did not give it) we are talking about teams hitting the woodwork 3 times, opposition keeper playing a blinder, ref disallowing a goal etc. These happen infrequently, but can upset how the league table should look. I have never said that the league table is not the best way of measuring things, just maintained that it contains randomness and does not necessarily tell the truth.

 

[Ollessendro]

At the end of the season, the best team gets promoted and the worst one gets relegated, what happens in between is what makes that conclusion true. So yes, the league table is the truest representation as to how good a team is.

Avoiding the question alert!!? I said at the end of the game. And I never said there is a better representation. You say it is the 'truest', but not the perfect. So therefore it must contain some element of randomness.

 

[Darren]

You are talking semantics, yes. You're being ridiculously picky. Its true that if you tell a lie and I report it as fact, I am not actually lying. Well done, you can have that one. So it's actually the scoreline that's incorrect in the above example, and all the league table is doing is reflecting the untruth of the scoreline.

But the phrase that is commonly heard is "the league table doesn't lie". Jesus wept.





That particular example is rare, yes. But what about all the other, more minor decisions that occur during a game? Lots of minor things added up can swing a game.

I am not quite sure what you point is. A football match is a game played between two teams of eleven people according to a set of rules and the enforecment of those rules is dependent on a referee who makes honest decisions based on his perceptions of what happened in a game. Sometimes those perceptions will be a true reflection of what happens, sometimes they won't. The score of the game depends on those perceptions. The league table is a collective summary of those scores.

So you have two choices:

(a) the league table will reflect the referees' honest perceptions at the time, even though those perceptions may be wrong. That's what happens now

(b) after the game, we analyse the video, see where the ref was wrong and correct the score and league table accordingly.

I don't think many people would want (b).

 

[Darren]

As much as it pains me to admit it, I do see Darren's point of view. But I don't think you actually really disagree do you Dazzler, you just think the term 'lie' is strong? The league table does not reflect whether teams deserved to win (for example taking into account poor decisions, luck, stats etc) and therefore does not represent what the result should have been. We're not just talking about extreme examples (like when Palace scored and the ref did not give it) we are talking about teams hitting the woodwork 3 times, opposition keeper playing a blinder, ref disallowing a goal etc. These happen infrequently, but can upset how the league table should look. I have never said that the league table is not the best way of measuring things, just maintained that it contains randomness and does not necessarily tell the truth.

Begging the question alert!

In this context define what you mean by "deserved to win" and "the truth".

 

[Ollessendro]

Begging the question alert!

In this context define what you mean by "deserved to win" and "the truth".

It is pretty bleeding obvious. Deserved to put the ball in the back of the net more times than the other team. The truth is the representation of which teams played the best (or not).

At the end of the game only a result is recorded. Circumstances are not. Therefore if a team was to have 99% possesion, 16 goals disallowed, 80 shots on goal, hit the bar 20 times and yet the other team fluke a goal with their only shot, the team that did not deserve to win get the points. Are you seriosuly telling me in those circumstances that the other team did not deserve to win? Cue Darren's comeback of what does deserve mean and it is subjective ....

 

[Darren]

It is pretty bleeding obvious. Deserved to put the ball in the back of the net more times than the other team. The truth is the representation of which teams played the best (or not).

At the end of the game only a result is recorded. Circumstances are not. Therefore if a team was to have 99% possesion, 16 goals disallowed, 80 shots on goal, hit the bar 20 times and yet the other team fluke a goal with their only shot, the team that did not deserve to win get the points. Are you seriosuly telling me in those circumstances that the other team did not deserve to win? Cue Darren's comeback of what does deserve mean and it is subjective ....

Thats the point, it's not "bleeding obvious" and it is incredibly subjective. There is huge room for disagreement as for whether a team "deserves" to win. You say "the truth is the representation of which team played the best", but don't define what "the best" is (if it isn't the team that scores most goals).

At the end of the day, the league table does - broadly - record which team is better than another. There can be no argument that last season's league table was accurate in showing United as a much better team than, say, Wycombe. As to whether Wednesday were a better team than United, that's more debateable and you can argue all day and all night about that. The point is is that such debates are ultimately, well, pointless. If you are going to have competitive sport you have to have some objective means of differentiating between competitors of similar strength. The league table does that and I am not aware of a better means

You seem to recognise the logical incoherence of what you are saying, but maintain the argument. Strange.

 

[moDtheGod]

I am not quite sure what you point is.

Sigh.

My point in that post, is that you are simply quibbling over the word "lie" but the only reason we are using the word "lie", is because of the popular phrase that we are challenging - "the league table doesn't lie".

It doesn't tell the truth, because it doesn't reflect variance, so I am happy to challenge the cliche and say that it does in fact lie. You seem to be arguing that it doesn't lie because it isn't the fault of the league table that the final score wasn't necessarily representative of how the game was played. I think that's petty and that we actually, essentially, agree.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Darren in arguing Semantic point shocker

 

[moDtheGod]

The league table does that and I am not aware of a better means

Why are you so black and white on this issue? Not one person challenging the assertion that the "league table doesn't lie" is calling for a replacement, they are simply saying that it doesn't tell the full story of every game, and doesn't reflect random chance elements.

That is it.

We are happy to use the table to decide promotion and relegation issues (etc), but to say that it tells the full story of a season is inaccurate.

 

[Darren]

Sigh.

My point in that post, is that you are simply quibbling over the word "lie" but the only reason we are using the word "lie", is because of the popular phrase that we are challenging - "the league table doesn't lie".

It doesn't tell the truth, because it doesn't reflect variance, so I am happy to challenge the cliche and say that it does in fact lie. You seem to be arguing that it doesn't lie because it isn't the fault of the league table that the final score wasn't necessarily representative of how the game was played. I think that's petty and that we actually, essentially, agree.

But the point of the league table is not to reflect variance. The point of it is to quantify the results of a number of football matches. It does that with 100% accuracy.

What I think you are trying to say is that the league table does not reflect the subjective views of a number of indivdiuals as to whether one team is better than another. Of course it doesn't and given that there are as many subjective views as there are football fans it would be impossible for it to do so.

 

[moDtheGod]

What I think you are trying to say is that the league table does not reflect the subjective views of a number of indivdiuals as to whether one team is better than another.

That's not what I am trying to say. I am referring mostly to the freakish, seemingly random events that directly affect results. There was nothing subjective about that "goal" that I mentioned before. It was just plain incorrect and had a direct impact upon the table.

They don't always have to be as major as that though. The "little" things add up and affect a game.

 

[Darren]

That's not what I am trying to say. I am referring mostly to the freakish, seemingly random events that directly affect results. There was nothing subjective about that "goal" that I mentioned before. It was just plain incorrect and had a direct impact upon the table.

They don't always have to be as major as that though. The "little" things add up and affect a game.

But then, as I said such major incidents as incorrectly given goals are pretty rare.

As for the little things, it's a cliche, but a priori likely, that these will tend to even out over a season. Random chance (or whatever you want to call it) will effect all teams and there's no good reason for thinking it will effect team A more than team B.

 

[moDtheGod]

As for the little things, it's a cliche, but a priori likely, that these will tend to even out over a season. Random chance (or whatever you want to call it) will effect all teams and there's no good reason for thinking it will effect team A more than team B.

And this is the crux of the matter. They simply don't even out over the duration of a season because it's not a large enough sample size. To truly even out, the season would need to be infinite.

Chance elements will happen in all games, but some teams may benefit more than a "fair" number of times than others. In other words, they get lucky. This is why you can have teams in false positions and therefore, the league can be seen to not be telling the whole truth.

 

[Darren]

And this is the crux of the matter. They simply don't even out over the duration of a season because it's not a large enough sample size. To truly even out, the season would need to be infinite.

Chance elements will happen in all games, but some teams may benefit more than a "fair" number of times than others. In other words, they get lucky. This is why you can have teams in false positions and therefore, the league can be seen to not be telling the whole truth.

I am not sure I grasp this sample/infinity argument. We draw conclusions all the time from samples that are not infinite. Why should footbvall matches be any different?

 

[secretchief]

But then, as I said such major incidents as incorrectly given goals are pretty rare.

As for the little things, it's a cliche, but a priori likely, that these will tend to even out over a season. Random chance (or whatever you want to call it) will effect all teams and there's no good reason for thinking it will effect team A more than team B.

The more decisions that are made during the course of the season, the more variables there are, the less chance it has of evening itself up. It's simple maths.

 

[Darren]

The more decisions that are made during the course of the season, the more variables there are, the less chance it has of evening itself up. It's simple maths.

I can see that, but lets say, on average, each team in a season has 100 controversial decisions appertaining to them. It seems to me that, in the absence of any sort of deiberate bias the amount of such decisions that are on the one hand favourable and the other hand unfavourable would tend towards equality.

That just seems to me how the world works. But then I know nowt about maths and may be utterly wrong...,

 

[moDtheGod]

Why should footbvall matches be any different?

I'm not suggesting that they should be, am I? I am happy to see the table used to determine who goes, up, who wins the trophy and all that jazz. However, I support anyone that challenges the statement that the league table doesn't lie, because it clearly can fail to tell the full truth.

 

[Ollessendro]

I am not sure I grasp this sample/infinity argument. We draw conclusions all the time from samples that are not infinite. Why should footbvall matches be any different?

If you toss a coin you have 50% chance of getting head or tails. You can toss a coin ten times and get heads all of those ten times. To get an exactly 50% split you would need to flip a coin an infinite number of times. The same applies to football. A team can keep getting lucky (see Sheffield Wednesday in the last 10 games of last season). If you flipped a coin 46 times I very much doubt you would get a 33 split. This is very basic statistics.

At no point have I (or MoD) said that we think there is a better representation thatn the league table. We've never called for a better measure. We merely say that it contains variance (randomness or luck). I will go back to my exaple (though I think it falls on deaf ears .... or eyes). If a team has 2 goals disallowed, batters the other team, gets an unjust penalty given against them (which results in the win), the oppostion keepers has a blinder etc. Do you think that team deserved to get zero points?

 

[moDtheGod]

It seems to me that, in the absence of any sort of deiberate bias the amount of such decisions that are on the one hand favourable and the other hand unfavourable would tend towards equality.

There's nothing at all wrong with that statement in my opinion. But of course, "tending towards equality" and actual equality aren't really the same thing.

Flip a coin 100 times. You should get a 50 / 50 split right? I bet you don't, though. Why is that?

 

[mattbianco1]

Sorry, I'm just a little confused? Are you saying things even out over a season? the last part of your post seems to prove that wet spam got all the breaks and us non in the prem. (i agree with that).

No, the last part of my statement says if you speak to Charlton or Watford fans they will say that they had all the tough luck too.

Thing is, nobody will claim to have had all the bad luck if they stay up or get promoted. I bet West Ham could say that they had loads of decisions go against them that season but nobody will remember them because they couldn't care less about them.

 

[moDtheGod]

I bet West Ham could say that they had loads of decisions go against them that season but nobody will remember them because they couldn't care less about them.

I don't really disagree with that to be honest, but I don't think anyone is using this discussion to say, for example, that Sheffield United have had a disproportionate amount of bad luck.

However, it is certainly possible in theory that we might have (although near enough impossible to prove, as things become very subjective indeed) and I think it's important to recognize that.

I agree that moaning about bad luck doesn't really get you anywhere, but we can't pretend that all bad luck evens out in just 4,140 minutes of football.

 

[Darren]

There's nothing at all wrong with that statement in my opinion. But of course, "tending towards equality" and actual equality aren't really the same thing.

Flip a coin 100 times. You should get a 50 / 50 split right? I bet you don't, though. Why is that?

Well yes, but a rough and ready fairness is all you are going to get in this world, whether in football or coin tossing.

If we take two teams who are obviously very closely matched (say United and Wednesday, Man United and Man City last season) arguing which of them is the "better" team is ultimately like arguing whether the Beatles or the Rolling Stones were the better band. There is no objective standard by which you can make a judgment. It is all purely subjective and hence ultimately inconclusive.

The League table doesn't set out to reach a conclusion on that argument. It sets out to quantify the results of each teams 46 matches. To that extent it is accurate.

So my view is that the league table doesn't lie about deciding who is the (subjectively) better team as it doesn't set out to decide that in the first place.

We may be in agreement now...