Leicester

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Of course they're not one dimensional.

With the number of sides that have a specific point lead or deficit, the pool of statistics is going to be low. By offering stats either side of the amount, a more general picture can be formed.

For example, if 20 sides have had a 4 point lead that had never been overturned but one team had a 5 point lead that had been, the suggestion would be that a 4 point lead is safer than a 5 point lead. Utter nonsense but statistically correct.

Sorry the stats don't suit you. Work out your own if you are able then post them. I know you won't as you're a gutless keyboard warrior.

Let's go back . You said "only once in 50 years has a team come back from being 5 points adrift by winning their last 6 games"

Those are the constraints you set yourself, of course the pool of data will be small. Your statement has as much validity as me claiming that a man named Claudio has never won the English League.

First rule of statistical analysis (trust me, I do this sort of thing for a living) is to be clear on what pool of data you are working from. Your pool of data is flawed, here is why

1) over the last 50 years teams have had to play 42 or 38 games in a season. Your pool of data is inconsistent, and you have made no allowances for that. If you have, you need to say what those allowances are
2) before 1982 there were only 2 points for a win. Your data becomes even more inconsistent
3) you add the constraint FIVE points adrift, yet you have openly admitted you have only gone as far back as 1992. Furthermore, your data sample includes teams more than 5 points adrift having games in hand! Surely you can see why your sample is looking more ridiculous
4) you add even more constraints "by winning their last 6 games". Point 1 should be factored in again (i.e. 6 games over 38 or 6 over 42). But you also failed to expand - e.g. Had any team overturned a Five point deficit by not winning the final 6.

You, basically, use stats to back up your own answers to your own questions . You are guilty of this regularly. You are more than welcome to shadow me on a day at the office so that you can get a better understanding of just how statistical analysis is performed to both answer questions (always raised by an outside source) and to use those statistics to forecast (not predict) the future.

You are a weekend staristician, and your stats are one dimensional.

"All grass is blue" - my sample is one garden in Tokyo that has blue grass. That's, essentially, what you are doing here. It's deeply flawed and I don't need to produce my own statistics to prove why.

[Jimmy the Jock]

Let's go back . You said "only once in 50 years has a team come back from being 5 points adrift by winning their last 6 games"

Those are the constraints you set yourself, of course the pool of data will be small. Your statement has as much validity as me claiming that a man named Claudio has never won the English League.

First rule of statistical analysis (trust me, I do this sort of thing for a living) is to be clear on what pool of data you are working from. Your pool of data is flawed, here is why

1) over the last 50 years teams have had to play 42 or 38 games in a season. Your pool of data is inconsistent, and you have made no allowances for that. If you have, you need to say what those allowances are
2) before 1982 there were only 2 points for a win. Your data becomes even more inconsistent
3) you add the constraint FIVE points adrift, yet you have openly admitted you have only gone as far back as 1992. Furthermore, your data sample includes teams more than 5 points adrift having games in hand! Surely you can see why your sample is looking more ridiculous
4) you add even more constraints "by winning their last 6 games". Point 1 should be factored in again (i.e. 6 games over 38 or 6 over 42). But you also failed to expand - e.g. Had any team overturned a Five point deficit by not winning the final 6.

You, basically, use stats to back up your own answers to your own questions . You are guilty of this regularly. You are more than welcome to shadow me on a day at the office so that you can get a better understanding of just how statistical analysis is performed to both answer questions (always raised by an outside source) and to use those statistics to forecast (not predict) the future.

You are a weekend staristician, and your stats are one dimensional.

"All grass is blue" - my sample is one garden in Tokyo that has blue grass. That's, essentially, what you are doing here. It's deeply flawed and I don't need to produce my own statistics to prove why.

Do you think Leicester have won the league then?

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Do you think Leicester have won the league then?

Where did I imply that I thought they had. My only opinion on it is that Eric has produced one dimensional stats. I haven't implied anything other than that.

[Steve R]

Do you think Leicester have won the league then?

Yes 100%.

[insider]

Do you think Leicester have won the league then?

Do you think they are imploding?

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Do you think they are imploding?

They are the Premier League champions.

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Do you think Leicester have won the league then?

Now I do, yes.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Let's go back . You said "only once in 50 years has a team come back from being 5 points adrift by winning their last 6 games"

Those are the constraints you set yourself, of course the pool of data will be small. Your statement has as much validity as me claiming that a man named Claudio has never won the English League.

First rule of statistical analysis (trust me, I do this sort of thing for a living) is to be clear on what pool of data you are working from. Your pool of data is flawed, here is why

1) over the last 50 years teams have had to play 42 or 38 games in a season. Your pool of data is inconsistent, and you have made no allowances for that. If you have, you need to say what those allowances are
2) before 1982 there were only 2 points for a win. Your data becomes even more inconsistent
3) you add the constraint FIVE points adrift, yet you have openly admitted you have only gone as far back as 1992. Furthermore, your data sample includes teams more than 5 points adrift having games in hand! Surely you can see why your sample is looking more ridiculous
4) you add even more constraints "by winning their last 6 games". Point 1 should be factored in again (i.e. 6 games over 38 or 6 over 42). But you also failed to expand - e.g. Had any team overturned a Five point deficit by not winning the final 6.

You, basically, use stats to back up your own answers to your own questions . You are guilty of this regularly. You are more than welcome to shadow me on a day at the office so that you can get a better understanding of just how statistical analysis is performed to both answer questions (always raised by an outside source) and to use those statistics to forecast (not predict) the future.

You are a weekend staristician, and your stats are one dimensional.

"All grass is blue" - my sample is one garden in Tokyo that has blue grass. That's, essentially, what you are doing here. It's deeply flawed and I don't need to produce my own statistics to prove why.

1. My initial sample was 50 years as that's all I could be bothered to go back to. When challenged by you I went back to the start of the Premier League. I had neither the time nor the inclination to look at every league season. I've got better things to do. Whether there were 38, 42 (even 40 once) games in a season is irrelevant. The only important thing is the number of games left. The number of games played overall makes no difference.

2. Fair enough, 2 points for a win back then but from memory made little difference to the results as so few teams clawed back a points difference.

3. My interest was teams that have been behind in a title race. The 5 point constraint was merely because that's the number of points behind Spurs were.

4. Again, I dispute what difference the overall number of games in a season makes. We're talking about games remaining. There's 6, or 4 or however many to go, regardless of how many have already been played.

Over to you again. If you're so bothered about my stats produce your own or shut up.

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

1. My initial sample was 50 years as that's all I could be bothered to go back to. When challenged by you I went back to the start of the Premier League. I had neither the time nor the inclination to look at every league season. I've got better things to do. Whether there were 38, 42 (even 40 once) games in a season is irrelevant. The only important thing is the number of games left. The number of games played overall makes no difference.

2. Fair enough, 2 points for a win back then but from memory made little difference to the results as so few teams clawed back a points difference.

3. My interest was teams that have been behind in a title race. The 5 point constraint was merely because that's the number of points behind Spurs were.

4. Again, I dispute what difference the overall number of games in a season makes. We're talking about games remaining. There's 6, or 4 or however many to go, regardless of how many have already been played.

Over to you again. If you're so bothered about my stats produce your own or shut up.

But your sample isn't 50 years is it? Your sample is the number of teams that were 5 points adrift with 6 games to go. You still haven't managed to tell me how many teams were exactly 5 points adrift with 6 to play over those 50 years. For all I know, Leicester and Spurs find themselves in a situation that has happened only once in the previous 50 years!

You went back 50 years because that's as far back as you could bother to go. Another flaw. Who knows, maybe in years 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 a team came from 5 points adrift every season - when you have an arbitrary cut off point - it is legitimate for people to consider whether that cut-off point has been drawn up to suit your argument.

The first rule of producing statistical analyses is to be clear about the dataset that you are deriving your results from, so that the audience fully understands what the stats are saying.

I've asked you 3 times to clarify it - that you can't is your problem, not mine. These are your stats. I'm asking you questions about them, but you're apparently insulted that I have asked questions, unless you think that calling people a cock or a keyboard warrior adds to the debate. I have no need or requirement to produce my own stats - I'm struggling to think of the relevance of your stats to be honest. A delightful waste of time for all concerned.

[Steve R]

Wow. Time of the month fellas?

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Wow. Time of the month fellas?

One of us needs to calm down, statistically speaking.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

But your sample isn't 50 years is it? Your sample is the number of teams that were 5 points adrift with 6 games to go. You still haven't managed to tell me how many teams were exactly 5 points adrift with 6 to play over those 50 years. For all I know, Leicester and Spurs find themselves in a situation that has happened only once in the previous 50 years!

You went back 50 years because that's as far back as you could bother to go. Another flaw. Who knows, maybe in years 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 a team came from 5 points adrift every season - when you have an arbitrary cut off point - it is legitimate for people to consider whether that cut-off point has been drawn up to suit your argument.

The first rule of producing statistical analyses is to be clear about the dataset that you are deriving your results from, so that the audience fully understands what the stats are saying.

I've asked you 3 times to clarify it - that you can't is your problem, not mine. These are your stats. I'm asking you questions about them, but you're apparently insulted that I have asked questions, unless you think that calling people a cock or a keyboard warrior adds to the debate. I have no need or requirement to produce my own stats - I'm struggling to think of the relevance of your stats to be honest. A delightful waste of time for all concerned.

If you can't think of the relevance to them, why waste as much time on them as you have? I'm not insulted by your questions, far from it. I think your attitude in the way you've approached and worded them has stunk, which has immediately got my back up. There are ways of wording things.

Someone said they thought Leicester might implode. I thought I'd have a look to see how many times a team in Spurs position had clawed things back and gone on and won the league. There were suggestions that Spurs would need to win all of their games to win the league, hence why that ended up being included. I wasn't after an all singing and dancing report. This is a messageboard with fans from all walks of life.

When newspapers and broadcasters come up with similar stats, do you email or write to them, pointing out (in your opinion) the error of their ways, or have you just reserved it for me?

[Ainsley Harriott]

But your sample isn't 50 years is it? Your sample is the number of teams that were 5 points adrift with 6 games to go. You still haven't managed to tell me how many teams were exactly 5 points adrift with 6 to play over those 50 years. For all I know, Leicester and Spurs find themselves in a situation that has happened only once in the previous 50 years!

You went back 50 years because that's as far back as you could bother to go. Another flaw. Who knows, maybe in years 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 a team came from 5 points adrift every season - when you have an arbitrary cut off point - it is legitimate for people to consider whether that cut-off point has been drawn up to suit your argument.

The first rule of producing statistical analyses is to be clear about the dataset that you are deriving your results from, so that the audience fully understands what the stats are saying.

I've asked you 3 times to clarify it - that you can't is your problem, not mine. These are your stats. I'm asking you questions about them, but you're apparently insulted that I have asked questions, unless you think that calling people a cock or a keyboard warrior adds to the debate. I have no need or requirement to produce my own stats - I'm struggling to think of the relevance of your stats to be honest. A delightful waste of time for all concerned.

Why are you being so dense?

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

If you can't think of the relevance to them, why waste as much time on them as you have? I'm not insulted by your questions, far from it. I think your attitude in the way you've approached and worded them has stunk, which has immediately got my back up. There are ways of wording things.

Someone said they thought Leicester might implode. I thought I'd have a look to see how many times a team in Spurs position had clawed things back and gone on and won the league. There were suggestions that Spurs would need to win all of their games to win the league, hence why that ended up being included. I wasn't after an all singing and dancing report. This is a messageboard with fans from all walks of life.

When newspapers and broadcasters come up with similar stats, do you email or write to them, pointing out (in your opinion) the error of their ways, or have you just reserved it for me?

Newspapers and broadcasters don't come up with stats as bad as yours, sorry. They simply don't.

[Steve R]

81.4% of statistics are completely made up.

[City123]

81.4% of statistics are completely made up.

73% of people agree with the above

[Jimmy the Jock]

Do you think they are imploding?

No... they had a tremendous result today. Them and their clacker playing fans can look forward to winning the league I guess.

[Jimmy the Jock]

Now I do, yes.

So do I.

[Heathblue]

Whist I'll not get involved in the name calling within this thread, I do think that my 2nd team will win the premier League

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Tottenham are the better footballing side .Leicester to win the premier league would be an unbelievable, incredible achievement though ,Paddypower giving 11/4 for Spurs to win the league, just before tonights game swung it for me though. (Down to 9/5 now)
Leicester stuttered on Sunday , Spurs were on fire tonight. Are Spurs the form side just at the right time?

8 points from their last 6 games. Not quite the 6 wins on the trot!! ;-)