When to do it

[Numero Uno]

Guys, just say the form between x and y was absolute shite, don't mention the R word and hopefully you won't go to prison.......

[ExiledAjax]

13 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

No more eccentric than you defining something that isn't objective as objective.

Eh? You're creating subjectivity by requiring a qualifying characteristic - that it relates only to the current ongoing season - to be used to determine whether or not form is relegation form or not. Using your definition we are only able to analyse form if we make it subject to another data set.

I (and everyone else it seems) present a definition of relegation form that can be used independently of any particular season, or even any other team. It can be applied across any division and any range  of results. That's a definition that is without qualification and is not influenced by an outside or third-party action or opinion. It's objective.

[Alessandro]

Just now, transfer reader said:

Have I denied that at any point?

Ha mate - well if you haven’t, then you seem to have got yourself in a right old lather with multiple posters for no reason! 

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, Numero Uno said:

Guys, just say the form between x and y was absolute shite, don't mention the R word and hopefully you won't go to prison.......

But using the R word is a useful way to grade the shite. 1ppg is shite, but it's generally not relegation levels of shite.

[transfer reader]

Just now, ExiledAjax said:

Eh? You're creating subjectivity by requiring a qualifying characteristic - that it relates only to the current ongoing season - to be used to determine whether or not form is relegation form or not. Using your definition we are only able to analyse form if we make it subject to another data set.

I (and everyone else it seems) present a definition of relegation form that can be used independently of any particular season, or even any other team. It can be applied across any division and any range  of results. That's a definition that is without qualification and is not influenced by an outside or third-party action or opinion. It's objective.

It is not accurate over any division or season 

It is accurate over some.

It is not true to then call it objectively relegation form

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

25 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

That's because it isn't objective. I said to you already you cannot put a number value on what relegation form is because of how it changes year on year.

At the moment, based on the current ppg of the teams in the bottom 3, 30 points would be enough for safety in the Premier League 

That requires less than 0.8 ppg. So all of those ppg values wouldn't be relegation form.

Yes, it's a different division, but it's an easy example and I already listed to you before several seasons where teams stayed up in the Championship with a lower ppg than the value you were using.

 

IF relegation was based on a minimum points level, then you could say below X ppg is objectively relegation form.

 

**** me sideways, you keep banging on about equitable yet you in this very post compare the premier league with the championship.

0.85 points per game would have got you relegated 10 out of the last 10 seasons from the championship.

You call people out for one thing then do it yourself. 

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, Alessandro said:

Ha mate - well if you haven’t, then you seem to have got yourself in a right old lather with multiple posters for no reason! 

I've got into a lather as the result of accusations of being on meth and a ******* pile on.

Maybe that's acceptable for you though.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

It is not accurate over any division or season 

It is accurate over some.

It is not true to then call it objectively relegation form

Fine.

"Form that indicates a serious threat of relegation in an average season".

But why use lot word when few word do?

Edited April 12 by ExiledAjax

[Silvio Dante]

 

18 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

@transfer reader - so if @Silvio Dante had said - during some seasons over the last 10 years, that period of PPG extrapolated over a season would be ‘relegation form’ - would that be acceptable? 

I’ve already said that a couple of pages back tbh where I pulled the ppg over the last six and last twelve pre Easter and evidenced that that ppg would see you relegated both this season and on the average points haul over the last ten seasons.

In fact, my very first response on this to the person getting exercised said that 3 points from 6 games over a season got you relegated so again pretty much exactly what you’re suggesting!

Its a bizarre old hill to die on but hey ho.

As I’m here, just to clear up a couple of things:

- I maintain (on the above metric) we were in relegation form in the six/twelve games pre Easter. I can acknowledge the table pulled from TWTD was flawed and there were three worse teams than us if you equalised the games but it doesn’t change the conclusion - 3 points from 6 games is about 23 points a season if form doesn’t improve and is absolutely, fundamentally, stone cold relegation form. I’m sorry if that upsets people. 

- Whether you believe it or not, I didn’t “intentionally” and “willingly” manipulate datasets. In the course of the thread I’ve been asked why I was ignoring our current form (because it was pre Easter) and why I hadn’t gone back to when LM took over (and I think the point has been made that such a long way back wouldn’t be “form”). I went back to the start of the year as that just seemed a reasonable date that could be understood (and bizarrely couldn’t be accused of manipulation had I gone back to, say, December 21st). On the ppg thing yesterday I even took out game 13 (a loss) and recalculated,
 

- As someone’s getting exercised over a throwaway “meths” comment I’d just point out that prior to that I’d been called a liar, a coward, that I had no testicles(?) and a “git”. My comment was in response to what looked a massively needless overreaction giving all those comments. In hindsight it would have been better not to say it but when you’re being accused of the above and being called names, you can react. I apologise for doing so. 

Bottom line is this, and I go back to what I said yesterday (below). I’ve not seen any argument to this made in a coherent way. If anyone wants to find my a championship season where 23 points gives survival, I’m more than willing to back down.

On 11/04/2024 at 11:29, Silvio Dante said:

I’d argue that five defeats in six would have been relegation form, but each to its own! Course of a season that gives you about 23 points at best.

[transfer reader]

9 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

**** me sideways, you keep banging on about equitable yet you in this very post compare the premier league with the championship.

0.85 points per game would have got you relegated 10 out of the last 10 seasons from the championship.

You call people out for one thing then do it yourself. 

I had already given examples from the Championship, as the very post you're quoting says. The Premier League this season was another example of it.

 

Now you are being dishonest.

Edited April 12 by transfer reader

[transfer reader]

8 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

 

I’ve already said that a couple of pages back tbh where I pulled the ppg over the last six and last twelve pre Easter and evidenced that that ppg would see you relegated both this season and on the average points haul over the last ten seasons.

In fact, my very first response on this to the person getting exercised said that 3 points from 6 games over a season got you relegated so again pretty much exactly what you’re suggesting!

Its a bizarre old hill to die on but hey ho.

As I’m here, just to clear up a couple of things:

- I maintain (on the above metric) we were in relegation form in the six/twelve games pre Easter. I can acknowledge the table pulled from TWTD was flawed and there were three worse teams than us if you equalised the games but it doesn’t change the conclusion - 3 points from 6 games is about 23 points a season if form doesn’t improve and is absolutely, fundamentally, stone cold relegation form. I’m sorry if that upsets people. 

- Whether you believe it or not, I didn’t “intentionally” and “willingly” manipulate datasets. In the course of the thread I’ve been asked why I was ignoring our current form (because it was pre Easter) and why I hadn’t gone back to when LM took over (and I think the point has been made that such a long way back wouldn’t be “form”). I went back to the start of the year as that just seemed a reasonable date that could be understood (and bizarrely couldn’t be accused of manipulation had I gone back to, say, December 21st). On the ppg thing yesterday I even took out game 13 (a loss) and recalculated,
 

- As someone’s getting exercised over a throwaway “meths” comment I’d just point out that prior to that I’d been called a liar, a coward, that I had no testicles(?) and a “git”. My comment was in response to what looked a massively needless overreaction giving all those comments. In hindsight it would have been better not to say it but when you’re being accused of the above and being called names, you can react. I apologise for doing so. 

Bottom line is this, and I go back to what I said yesterday (below). I’ve not seen any argument to this made in a coherent way. If anyone wants to find my a championship season where 23 points gives survival, I’m more than willing to back down.

You were called those things in response to you continually using an unfair set of numbers in one table, even after it was pointed out. Which at that point does become dishonest.

And multiple extremely disrespectful condescending posts followed as well.

I tend to give people responses based on what they say to me, I do sometimes slip up and react to others unfairly, but in this discourse, the disrespect was started by your dishonesty.

Edited April 12 by transfer reader

[Numero Uno]

Game tomorrow lads.................

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, transfer reader said:

To intentionally use stats that are uneven on games played to try and make some kind of point is dishonest, and to continue to do so after it is pointed out is intentionally so 

I get you're pals with that *****, doesn't mean you have to take a side though.

Or is it ok for him to be as patronising as possible and make drugs accusations?

 

Kin’ell, talk about doubling down.

I’ll post my own views thank you very much, big enough and ugly enough to do that.  I’m not taking sides, I think you are completely going OTT about a fairly throwaway statement about form.  If you think he’s patronising take it up with him.  

By all means have your say about what you consider “form” to be, but don’t call someone a liar or being intentionally dishonest because they approach it differently.  Just like @ExiledAjax has (does that make him another pal of mine) because I like his post?  And don’t expect everyone to agree with you either.

 

 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Game tomorrow lads.................

This one is better!  End to end!  Form goes out the window

[Silvio Dante]

4 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

You were called those things in response to you continually using an unfair set of numbers in one table, even after it was pointed out. Which at that point does become dishonest.

And multiple extremely disrespectful condescending posts followed as well.

 

Yep. I hate lying as well. 

32 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

@transfer reader - so if @Silvio Dante had said - during some seasons over the last 10 years, that period of PPG extrapolated over a season would be ‘relegation form’ - would that be acceptable? 

Alessandro has given a reasonable point here and I note your response 

27 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Yes, if it was an accurate statement because then it would be correct.

I'd still have an issue with the very selective dataset for the first table and the second table having uneven amounts of games, but that's seperate to whether a statement is actually true.

…which confirms you would accept it as it’s an accurate and correct statement 

On 11/04/2024 at 11:29, Silvio Dante said:

I’d argue that five defeats in six would have been relegation form, but each to its own! Course of a season that gives you about 23 points at best.

…and the above shows I stated exactly what Alessandro is suggesting in my first response to you in extrapolating the ppg to a season. The fact that that points total gives you relegation is self evident.

On 11/04/2024 at 11:38, transfer reader said:

It was better than 3 other teams over the same time frame.

Therefore not relegation form.

….but you wouldn’t accept it.

So, your statement that you’d accept it is wrong. In the words of a wiseman “Which at that point does become dishonest”

Facts. They’re bastards.

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Kin’ell, talk about doubling down.

I’ll post my own views thank you very much, big enough and ugly enough to do that.  I’m not taking sides, I think you are completely going OTT about a fairly throwaway statement about form.  If you think he’s patronising take it up with him.  

By all means have your say about what you consider “form” to be, but don’t call someone a liar or being intentionally dishonest because they approach it differently.  Just like @ExiledAjax has (does that make him another pal of mine) because I like his post?  And don’t expect everyone to agree with you either.

 

 

Intentionally selective and manipulated datasets are dishonest, whichever way they are used.

That's what I said.

Silvio continued to use those which is intentional dishonesty.

They then followed that up with multiple condescending posts, all this before I called him a liar.

That was then followed up by an accusation of meth use.

 

But keep defending your pal.

[The Original OTIB]

This place really is quite weird sometimes. I'm off outside for some light pruning, sunshine and fresh air.

[transfer reader]

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Yep. I hate lying as well. 

Alessandro has given a reasonable point here and I note your response 

…which confirms you would accept it as it’s an accurate and correct statement 

…and the above shows I stated exactly what Alessandro is suggesting in my first response to you in extrapolating the ppg to a season. The fact that that points total gives you relegation is self evident.

….but you wouldn’t accept it.

So, your statement that you’d accept it is wrong. In the words of a wiseman “Which at that point does become dishonest”

Facts. They’re bastards.

23 points over a season as a lone stat would be considered relegation form as historically that amount would see relegation.

23 points over a season, with the context that was added of there being 3 teams projected (by the same methodology) to do worse would then become not relegation form as it would see survival.

 

Notice how context changes things?

 

That really wasn't the gotcha you think it was.

Edited April 12 by transfer reader

[transfer reader]

I really can't be arsed with dealing with the pile on any more or the posts taken with context removed as if that made them some kind of argument, so I'll move on.

@Silvio Dante I apologise for insulting you. I don't care whether you bother to apologise for the needless condescending posts and I frankly don't expect it.

But I'm willing to bury the hatchet at this point and move past it.

Edited April 12 by transfer reader

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Intentionally selective and manipulated datasets are dishonest, whichever way they are used.

That's what I said.

Silvio continued to use those which is intentional dishonesty.

They then followed that up with multiple condescending posts, all this before I called him a liar.

That was then followed up by an accusation of meth use.

 

But keep defending your pal.

me and @Silvio Dante right now!

Seriously, you’re dying in a ditch over this. FWIW if I was Silvio I would have just said “this is my usage of form, I don’t give a shit how you qualify it”.

 

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

me and @Silvio Dante right now!

Seriously, you’re dying in a ditch over this. FWIW if I was Silvio I would have just said “this is my usage of form, I don’t give a shit how you qualify it”.

 

See above

I can't be bothered any more Dave, don't try and keep it going.

I expected better from you, as you're usually reasonable 

 

Edited April 12 by transfer reader

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

See above

I can't be bothered any more Dave, don't try and keep it going.

I expected better from you, as you're usually reasonable 

 

So you decide there will be a last word, and it will be you that has it.  Ok.

I am usually reasonable.  I just think you’ve gone way OTT on this.  If that’s me being unreasonable, i’ll take that onboard going forward.

[Silvio Dante]

11 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

I really can't be arsed with dealing with the pile on any more or the posts taken with context removed as if that made them some kind of argument, so I'll move on.

@Silvio Dante I apologise for insulting you. I don't care whether you bother to apologise for the needless condescending posts and I frankly don't expect it.

But I'm willing to bury the hatchet at this point and move past it.

I never had a hatchet out to be fair.

There was no “pile on” though. If you take the time to read through the thread later hopefully you’ll just see @Lorenzos Only Goal, @ExiledAjax, @Davefevs, @The Swan and Cemetery amongst others disagreeing with you in a pretty reasoned basis. Thats not a pile on - it’s a forum.
 

Even in this note you’re saying you’ve been taken out of context (you haven’t) and having a dig about “needlessly condescending” posts. If you want to call a halt, then just do so without that.

I wish you well.

[Moderator]

This thread has clearly gone on far enough now

Please all remember not to get personal in threads or PM's and if you see something posted that you take offence to please either PM a member of the admin / mod team or raise a report