Quote Mrs Barista="Mrs Barista"
You challenged me excluding Harlequins on the basis of my opinion and requested an accepted methodology for identifying outliers. The most recognised technique for this is Grubbs, which, when the data set was run through the calculation, showed Harlequins were indeed a statistical outlier. You didn't like this and suggested an alternative formula, not one specifically designed identify a single outlier in a data range, I should add, which was precisely what you asked for (that test being Grubbs, obviously). '"
I challenged excluding Quins "in your opinion", you then suggested a "standard deviation diagram". I didn't need to invent one of those because by calculation it is clear that Quins fall within +- 3 standard deviations of the mean.
You decided to persist with the nonsense of that approach and made a graph with an arbitrary cut off £1,000,000 above and below the median as if that proved anything at all.
At this point you included this strange statement "
It's almost as if you're trying to downgrade the financial performance of the rest of the competition so the results of your club are compared to an average distorted by a loss twice as great as the next worst club. Assuming the accounts are filed at some point." Which I think is telling in terms of the real purpose of this pseudo scientific excercise.
Even in this statement you cling onto the notion that because Quins loss is twice that of the next biggest loss making club that in some way justifies their exclusion. You still have not explained why that logic should not apply to Leeds whose profit is 4.5 times that of the next biggest profit making club.
Quote Mrs Barista="Mrs Barista"Getting a bit huffy, having asked for a methodology and been provided with one that validated my initial view, you suddenly abandon your need for any statistical model because now I'm told there can't possibly be one. You should make your mind up pet. You resort to saying the point about 4 clubs being in profit was some sort of desperate last ditch attempt by me to salvage the argument. I've now corrected you with a reference to my opening post. Grubbs rules, I win, Harlequins are excluded. '"
I haven't abandoned a request for valid statistical technique which reasonably excludes Quins at all, I'm still waiting for one.
The Grubbs test cannot exclude Quins because Quins are a part of the data set "SL Clubs profit/loss 2009". Their results are normal for that data set. They fall within +- 3 standard deviations of the mean, which is where we would expect the vast majority of results to lie. They do.
You will continue to grasp at this straw though because having made an absurd statement "In my opinion Quins are not representative" you then sought some kind of technique (after making up a couple of your own) which, if used inappropriately, appears to support your exclusion of Quins. Grubbs doesn't, Quins are a SL club and their financial results contribute to the data set "financial results of SL clubs 2009"
If, as has been mentioned, Crusaders post a £1,000,000 loss what happens to Quins then? Do they get put back in your calculation because they've suddenly become a SL club again?
What if Saints and Hudds had not reported yet or you didn't like their results either so decided to exclude them "in your opinion" as well as Quins. Do you then also exclude Leeds because they become an outlier? And then what is the value of your conclusion about the data set?
The reason for this preparatory "study" concluding in a made up "average" is to pave the way for a further dig at Rovers when their "less than expected" losses are published.
If people think that unlikely then they only need to see a few of your posts on the Rovers forum.
You may follow Hull FC but your passion is sniping at Rovers.
) 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.
'"
