Re: 19 for Wigan : Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:02 pm  

Colly2 wrote:

Scott Hill didn't put bums on seats. Anyone who says otherwise should be able to show their calculations and tell us how many bums he added.

3,428 scott hill 9th
3,909 scott hill 9th
POST scot hill
3,436 11th
3,380 13th
3,124 12th
2,807 12th

Re: 19 for Wigan : Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:29 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

3,428 scott hill 9th
3,909 scott hill 9th
POST scot hill
3,436 11th
3,380 13th
3,124 12th
2,807 12th

What are you showing there GF? Is it our final position for the season and average attendance?

Re: 19 for Wigan : Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:13 am  

gutterfax wrote:

3,428 scott hill 9th
3,909 scott hill 9th
POST scot hill
3,436 11th
3,380 13th
3,124 12th
2,807 12th

Sorry Gutters, you are still way off. No way did Scott Hill put bums on seats...jeez, nobody in London would have a friggin clue who he was! He was a good player who Ian Lenegan fancied ahead of Dorn, when he was putting money into a decent London side.

Only RL afficionados knowwho Scott Hill is and we don't have many of them in the capital (unfortunately).

We could have the Holy Trinity of Slater, Smith and Cronk playing for London and it would barely cause a ripple (ok, we would have some curious Aussies turn up for a while until we started losing ).

Re: 19 for Wigan : Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:17 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

What are you showing there GF? Is it our final position for the season and average attendance?

yep.

Re: 19 for Wigan : Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:21 am  

Gutters: Very politely, all you're showing is that you are out of your depth in the field of statistics. I had expected you to provide an equation in a functional form chosen and justified by you which showed an estimated "Scott Hill" coefficient.

As it stands, your data tell us almost nothing about a Scott Hill effect. Your data are an interesting starting point for looking at the effect on attendances of league position and time elapsed since 2007 but that's about it. Also, if you'd provided the 2006 average attendance, I suspect that figure would be greater than or about the same as 2007 - if greater, by your own faulty logic that would mean Scott Hill actually put speccies off!

Re: 19 for Wigan : Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:44 am  

Colly2 wrote:

Gutters: Very politely, all you're showing is that you are out of your depth in the field of statistics. I had expected you to provide an equation in a functional form chosen and justified by you which showed an estimated "Scott Hill" coefficient.

As it stands, your data tell us almost nothing about a Scott Hill effect. Your data are an interesting starting point for looking at the effect on attendances of league position and time elapsed since 2007 but that's about it. Also, if you'd provided the 2006 average attendance, I suspect that figure would be greater than or about the same as 2007 - if greater, by your own faulty logic that would mean Scott Hill actually put speccies off!

GF. Read what this bloke said. You've proven nothing bar the fact you have an opinion.

Re: 19 for Wigan : Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:21 pm  

Scott Hill second season was great. Made Gafa look good.

Superb player

Re: 19 for Wigan : Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:33 pm  

Rooster Booster wrote:

GF. Read what this bloke said. You've proven nothing bar the fact you have an opinion.

Nothing new, GF has never shown anything with data. I expect he has little to zero understanding of statistics.

Re: 19 for Wigan : Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:34 pm  

jbuzza wrote:

Nothing new, GF has never shown anything with data. I expect he has little to zero understanding of statistics.

probably less than that