Grubbs' test, also called the ESD method (extreme studentized deviate), determines whether the most extreme value in the list you entered is a signficant outlier from the rest. [uIf a value is found to be a significant outlier under Grubbs' test, you may choose to exclude it from your analysis.[/u

Mean: -270282.00
SD: 704902.38
# of values: 11
[uOutlier detected? Yes[/u
Significance level: 0.05 (two-sided)
Critical value of Z: 2.35472945013
Your data

Row Value Z Significant Outlier?
1 720871. 1.41
2 159514. 0.61
3 77141. 0.49
4 26679. 0.42
5 -19651. 0.36
6 -40715. 0.33
7 -72209. 0.28
8 -202379. 0.10
9 -823739. 0.79
10 -861810. 0.84
[u11 -1936804. 2.36 Significant outlier. P < 0.05[/u

Don't worry about Huddersfield's financial reporting.

Oh my god accountants are arguing in binary!

Poor Mr B - married to an accountant who has to have the last word.

Just posting profit & Loss figures with no breakdown means nothing.

What id expect from a noob accountant.

Breakdowns aren't available because in most cases they only file abbreviated accounts. There has been some doom-mongering about the financial state of clubs, and deservedly so in some cases. Filed accounts are the only source of infomation publicly available and it seems the picture was a bit better in 2009 than 2008. Where's the harm in sharing that info?

Mrs Barista, well done this must be the most mind numbingly boring thread every

Grubbs

Thanks bud - up against some fierce competition as well


Grubbs is my new favourite.

Wahey! Now we're getting somewhere. I have to admit, that's a bit better than excluding Quins because in your opinion they distort the figures.



Unfortunately, Quins are undoubtedly part of the population of SL clubs, this is self evident and as such the Grubbs test is neither needed nor justified. You're not testing for an erroneous result, the financial results of a Premier League football club haven't slipped in by mistake. Your data set is the financial results of SL clubs.

"One possibility is that the outlier was due to chance. In this case, you should keep the value in your analyses. The value came from the same population as the other values, so should be included."

[urlhttp://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/GrubbsExplain.cfm[/url







Close but no cigar. Still, fortunately for Mr B you'll now be busy all weekend trying to justify your use of Grubbs so at least he can watch what he likes on telly. You're welcome Mr B.

I would be happy to let that go, if my better half liked rugby. But she doesn't, and she has to have the last word.

Unfortunately for you, Grubbs test showed that the value for Harlequins was a statistically significant distance from the rest of the population so I will exclude it, thanks. In fact you might say that it backs up non-expansionists like Roofs who who have long held the view that Harlequins inclusion in this population is erroneous anyway and Grubb has provided some empirical evidence to support this opinion.

That is just total nonsense and proves you have no idea what the technique is for or what the results show.

In any event you are using the test incorrectly. Perhaps if this were the first set of SL clubs accounts you could argue the Quins figure is exceptional and might be disregarded on that basis. But it's not even exceptional for Quins, it's a fairly normal result.

What you have done is to collect a set of data, used that to make some kind of point, seen that including Quins weakens your point and searched for reasons to validate the exclusion because in your opinion it doesn't belong. This resulted in the patented Mrs Barista prove what you want from any data set methodology by picking an arbitrary number that includes the data you want but excludes those you don't.

You then tried a different approach arguing you were merely pointing out that 4 clubs were profitable compared to one before and claimed this was the real point you were making. You don't need any sort of made up statistical analysis to prove that, we can see from the list of figures you supplied.

Then you tried to argue Quins could be excluded because their loss was 2 x greater than the next biggest loss making club. You ignore the fact that Leeds profit is 4.5 times that of the next biggest profit making club.

Finally you sought salvation in Grubbs (quite apposite

) but use the technique selectively and not in the way it should correctly be used because you think this justifies your reasoning. It doesn't.

Quins are part of the population of SL clubs no amount of erroneous use of statistical techniques will change that. Their result falls within +- 3 standard deviations of the mean, which is where we would expect 99.7% of the data. Their result is normal for the data set studied.

There is no basis to exclude them, to do so would be to introduce an obvious (to anyone but you apparently) bias into the findings.