Lucky AND Good (apparently in that order)

[KingsX]

I can't find these elsewhere on FT.

 

http://www.michaelbertin.com/its-better-to-be-lucky-than-good-but-its-even-better-to-be-lucky-and-good/

 

This concerns only one, albeit important, statistic, and obviously without any attempt to control for quality of shots nor how many were on target, etc.

 

Curious for reaction.  (If already posted, please direct me to the thread.)

[Filbert's Friend]

Is it not possible that a team with a solid defence like ours, who manage to get so many players behind the ball, frustrate opposition attackers until they run out of ideas and fire a shot from a long way out or from a poor angle?

 

It's very easy to take a fact and, without context, make it look how you want it to.

 

Are we "lucky", or do we create a situation in which strikers snatch at half-opportunities?

[Hungry Hungry Fox]

Any team that wins the league requires a certain amount of luck

[Hungry Hungry Fox]

I refuse to take anything seriously, where the author has used the word "ridiculousist".

[foxes_rule1978]

Is it not possible that a team with a solid defence like ours, who manage to get so many players behind the ball, frustrate opposition attackers until they run out of ideas and fire a shot from a long way out or from a poor angle?

It's very easy to take a fact and, without context, make it look how you want it to.

Are we "lucky", or do we create a situation in which strikers snatch at half-opportunities?

This 100%, we limit the amount of clear cut chances in a game, so they resort to having to try to score from distance or in more improbable positions. It's called great defending

[Monsell1976]

Who cares what these idiots believe, the history books will read.

2015/ 16 premier league champions.

LEICESTER CITY

[Number 6]

A hole in one in golf has luck involved. But Tiger Woods is more likely to get one than I am.

[ARCHER]

A hole in one in golf has luck involved. But Tiger Woods is more likely to get one than I am.

Excellent analogy.

[Fox Ulike]

I can't find these elsewhere on FT.

 

http://www.michaelbertin.com/its-better-to-be-lucky-than-good-but-its-even-better-to-be-lucky-and-good/

 

This concerns only one, albeit important, statistic, and obviously without any attempt to control for quality of shots nor how many were on target, etc.

 

Curious for reaction.  (If already posted, please direct me to the thread.)

 

It's complete nonsense.

 

Just because something has a very low probability of happening doesn't mean that it has only happened due to luck. In fact, the opposite is usually the case.

 

James Yorke may understand how to generate good stats, but he has no idea how to interpret them.

 

If you watch us you can tell automatically why opposition shot conversion is so low. We're defensively so well organised that nobody is ever out of position, and so the opposition rarely get a free shot on goal. There's usually someone in position to block it. This is tactical.

 

Also, we don't dive into tackles, but our tactic is to jockey players outside the box and force them into an early shot.

 

Luck just isn't a factor over a 36 game season - especially when you are SEVEN points clear of your nearest rival.

[Blarmy]

Very strange that someone who is clearly intelligent equates a low shot conversion purely to luck.  Is a boxer who blocks well lucky?  Some games last season reminded me of Ali's rope-a-dope, come to think of it...

[OadbyBlue]

Luck dosen't last for 45 games or so since West Ham last season

[Sionnach gorm]

Clearly he's attempting to use the laws of probability on something which those laws cannot be applied; human action. Total dunce!