Woodcote Royalrhroyal
In non-economics speak, the stats on Hunt and Kebe accounting for a lot of assists fails to take into account factors such as form, opposition and surrounding players. These factors, if included, could take some of the credit away from Hunt and Kebe. However an Economics graduate should know that these omitted variables are highly unlikely to have such a great impact that the initial findings that we can discredit the fact that Hunt and Kebe are simply two of our most creative players and best options on the wing. Even if the coefficient, i.e. the level to which Kebe and Hunt are responsible for creating our goals, is considerably lower than it was initially when we include all variables, so long as it is still positive there is evidence that they have been our two most creative players this season. I imagine the value would even be large enough that it could pass a test at the 1% significance level that it was accurate (i.e. we could be 99% sure that Hunt and Kebe had been our most creative players so far this season.)
Snowball's statistics cannot be written off on the basis of omitting certain factors. The truth is this is a football board, do you expect people to come up with a load of complicated equations and formulas before going into hypothesis testing? Of course bloody not. Keep up the stats Snowball. They don't tell the full story, but they certainly tell a significant part of it and start debate.
Well said. An excellent counter to the garbage contained in the opening post which has gone some say to restoring this old duffers faith in modern education.
Garbage how exactly Mr Old Duffer?
