Well deserved Rodgers and Sturridge

[Muddled]

You lot dont believe in curses do you?

Nah.

[Neil Young]

But... the previous 4 games would have accrued something like a minimum 75% win rate, in order for them to have won the award.

Myth unbusted!

That's fallacious and you know it.

[dom9]

That's fallacious and you know it.

It's not even.

[Neil Young]

It is. Your sample size is too small to make comparisons across months like that.

The award goes (usually - there may have been exceptions) to the manager/player with the best record in any given month. That's the comparison - between individuals in a single month. A comparison between months for a single individual is a different thing.

At the very least you should compare the record in the month after the award with the record in the month before the award.

And then you have to wonder what the "anti-curse" was that "caused" the improvement culminating in the award before the "curse" "caused" the decline.

[dom9]

It is. Your sample size is too small to make comparisons across months like that.

The award goes (usually - there may have been exceptions) to the manager/player with the best record in any given month. That's the comparison - between individuals in a single month. A comparison between months for a single individual is a different thing.

At the very least you should compare the record in the month after the award with the record in the month before the award.

And then you have to wonder what the "anti-curse" was that "caused" the improvement culminating in the award before the "curse" "caused" the decline.

It really isn't. I didn't base it on any facts, and I only said it prolong the conversation.

If you were gonna do it properly, you'd also have to compare unbeaten runs in any 4 game (or other arbitary) unbeaten run period, so as to better understand how unbeaten runs work statistically. So, the chances of achieving a one game unbeaten run, compared to a two game unbeaten run, all the way up to a ceiling of N games.

Then from that sample, you could compare those sequences in which the MotM award was won to see if there is a statistically significant difference between them.

[fah-q]

Nah.

You are what you eat?

[Neil Young]

It really isn't. I didn't base it on any facts, and I only said it prolong the conversation.

If you were gonna do it properly, you'd also have to compare unbeaten runs in any 4 game (or other arbitary) unbeaten run period, so as to better understand how unbeaten runs work statistically. So, the chances of achieving a one game unbeaten run, compared to a two game unbeaten run, all the way up to a ceiling of N games.

Then from that sample, you could compare those sequences in which the MotM award was won to see if there is a statistically significant difference between them.

It is fallacious. And you know it. And I knew you weren't saying it seriously and only to prolong the conversation which is why I said you knew it.

These awards are rarely more than honouring statistical blips. Every month one manager and the odd player has a good run of games and the team does well and the player scores. Next month another manager does it or another player. Good teams and good players do it more often, that's why they're good and so why successful managers win more often which is what makes them successful and so on in a neverending chain of circular logic. That's it.

The blip soon comes to an end which is why it can superficially look like a curse. Especially if you don't notice the times the manager/player doesn't lose/fail to score in the very next game.

It's a mixture of ability (of the team and of the player) and randomness. Someone has to win the award so someone does.

[Bender]

yes there's such a jonah that Slur Alex continued his tremendous year in year out success

[kop-al-74]

Noooooooo, double the joojoo!!!

[dom9]

It is fallacious. And you know it. And I knew you weren't saying it seriously and only to prolong the conversation which is why I said you knew it.

These awards are rarely more than honouring statistical blips. Every month one manager and the odd player has a good run of games and the team does well and the player scores. Next month another manager does it or another player. Good teams and good players do it more often, that's why they're good and so why successful managers win more often which is what makes them successful and so on in a neverending chain of circular logic. That's it.

The blip soon comes to an end which is why it can superficially look like a curse. Especially if you don't notice the times the manager/player doesn't lose/fail to score in the very next game.

It's a mixture of ability (of the team and of the player) and randomness. Someone has to win the award so someone does.

Fallacious

Based on a mistaken belief.

It really was not based on a mistaken belief, nor any facts or theories, as it was a completely made up comparison with absolutely no thought as to whether it was actually correct. It was a throwaway comment.

I think your subsequent pursuing of this debate is fallacious.

[red g]

yes there's such a jonah that Slur Alex continued his tremendous year in year out success

he has only won it 27 times, Which when you consider he won 13 league Titles in that period you would have thought he would have won more than 2 a season.

Moyes has won it 11 times, sure they have pride of place next to his 2nd division title.

[Neil Young]

Fallacious

Based on a mistaken belief.

It really was not based on a mistaken belief, nor any facts or theories, as it was a completely made up comparison with absolutely no thought as to whether it was actually correct. It was a throwaway comment.

I think your subsequent pursuing of this debate is fallacious.

****ing hell, Dom.

Your post about 75% win ratios and all that contained reasoning. Yes it was spurious and made up and you didn't mean it seriously, as I went out of my way to recognise. But the hilarious joke argument you put forward was based on a fallacy. I didn't say you believed it.

You need a better dictionary. A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. Fallacious is the adjective derived from that. It has nothing to do with belief.

[RedReet]

I love Fridays.

[Lee]

Bantz.

[ChesterDave]

Going on historical data (from 2006/07 season) the manager of the month percentages in their next match are:

46% won, 27% drew and 27% lost.

Myth busted and eyes dried out!

TYVM. I was just about to waste my afternoon.