Harry Kane

[mcw257]

So we can't argue with the data. He's clearly better than Ronaldo.

 

[rossdapep]

You lot need to calm down. He's just a shit Jamie Vardy by all accounts.

 

[L-man]

Harry Kane, Luckiest Man In Soccer

AUG. 21, 2015 AT 12:50 PM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/harry-kane-is-premier-leagues-luckiest-player/

We’re only two games into the current English Premier League season, so it’s way too early to make any sweeping pronouncements. (Except maybe that Chelsea’s stint in 16th place won’t last long.) But here’s one fairly safe bet: Tottenham striker Harry Kane isn’t going to replicate his 2014-15 performance.

 

[Saoirse]

Harry Kane, Luckiest Man In Soccer

AUG. 21, 2015 AT 12:50 PM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/harry-kane-is-premier-leagues-luckiest-player/

538 is a really good resource for politics, but their football/'soccer' coverage is pretty atrocious whenever I've looked. For instance, their 'model' at the start of the season said we were more like to be relegated than win the league, Man City were run-away favourites and that we'd only make it to 58 points. It's bizarre that they let this tripe be published when pretty much everyone would agree that it's total nonsense.

(And this isn't coming from someone who's sceptical of the whole modelling/forecasting/expected goals thing in general, they just seem to be really really bad at it)

That being said, the Kane article isn't totally unfounded. Their premise was that Kane scored far, far more than you'd expect given his chances in 14-15, that it was very rare for that to be sustained, and that in all likelihood he wouldn't do quite so well. Since then we've managed to make more chances for Kane, but he has continued doing far better than you'd expect with them. The most reasonable conclusion now is that Kane really is a "once-in-a-generation talent" as they put it, but you can see why they were sceptical of that after a single season.

 

[yankspurs]

538 is a really good resource for politics, but their football/'soccer' coverage is pretty atrocious whenever I've looked. For instance, their 'model' at the start of the season said we were more like to be relegated than win the league, Man City were run-away favourites and that we'd only make it to 58 points. It's bizarre that they let this tripe be published when pretty much everyone would agree that it's total nonsense.

(And this isn't coming from someone who's sceptical of the whole modelling/forecasting/expected goals thing in general, they just seem to be really really bad at it)

That being said, the Kane article isn't totally unfounded. Their premise was that Kane scored far, far more than you'd expect given his chances in 14-15, that it was very rare for that to be sustained, and that in all likelihood he wouldn't do quite so well. Since then we've managed to make more chances for Kane, but he has continued doing far better than you'd expect with them. The most reasonable conclusion now is that Kane really is a "once-in-a-generation talent" as they put it, but you can see why they were sceptical of that after a single season.

I think you'll find Nate Silver(538) isn't too good at the whole political polling thing either

-Signed, November 8, 2016

 

[Saoirse]

I think you'll find Nate Silver(538) isn't too good at the whole political polling thing either

-Signed, November 8, 2016

He really doesn't deserve his reputation for that. 538 gave Trump a higher chance than any other forecaster and Silver consistently warned that he was entirely capable of beating Clinton. No reasonable person could have analysed the evidence and argued Clinton wasn't the favourite, it's the idiots who gave her a 98% chance who were talking nonsense.

 

[yankspurs]

He really doesn't deserve his reputation for that. 538 gave Trump a higher chance than any other forecaster and Silver consistently warned that he was entirely capable of beating Clinton. No reasonable person could have analysed the evidence and argued Clinton wasn't the favourite, it's the idiots who gave her a 98% chance who were talking nonsense.

He was the only one saying that but he never really gave him much of a chance(being fair no one else did either). But he also misjudged the GOP taking both houses.

 

[JayB]

He was the only one saying that but he never really gave him much of a chance(being fair no one else did either). But he also misjudged the GOP taking both houses.

He gave Trump a 30% chance and was at pains to note that the best hitters in baseball bat .300 and rack up lots of hits. He was by far the most bullish of any of the statistical prognosticators on Trump's chances and any suggestion that his credibility was damaged by the election is ridiculous IMO, in reality he was the closest to the mark.

 

[Saoirse]

He was the only one saying that but he never really gave him much of a chance(being fair no one else did either). But he also misjudged the GOP taking both houses.

The model gave Trump a 30% chance or so, and put Clinton's lead at 3.5 points when in reality it was 2 points. He'd also warned multiple times that a 3.5 points margin was not safe, that the average error in American polls historically was around 3 points, and that a narrow Clinton win could see Trump take the electoral college. They also gave the Republicans a 49.3% chance of winning the Senate and as good as guaranteed them to win the House, so not sure how you can say that's misjudged.

The problem really is that for whatever reason people see a small polling lead as a guarentee and act as though it's a massive shock when the result narrowly goes the other way. If someone's train had a 1 in 3 chance of being late on any given morning, they'd a) be very upset, b) wouldn't be very surprised when it turned up late and c) would plan around the possibility that it would be. But if you tell someone that Trump has a 1 in 3 chance of being elected President - or conversely that Clinton has a 2 in 3 chance - they take it as a near-certainty and then panic horribly when it comes off.

 

[matthew.absurdum]

From discussing kane to trump, i really love SC

 

[aussiespursguy]

The model gave Trump a 30% chance or so, and put Clinton's lead at 3.5 points when in reality it was 2 points. He'd also warned multiple times that a 3.5 points margin was not safe, that the average error in American polls historically was around 3 points, and that a narrow Clinton win could see Trump take the electoral college. They also gave the Republicans a 49.3% chance of winning the Senate and as good as guaranteed them to win the House, so not sure how you can say that's misjudged.

The problem really is that for whatever reason people see a small polling lead as a guarentee and act as though it's a massive shock when the result narrowly goes the other way. If someone's train had a 1 in 3 chance of being late on any given morning, they'd a) be very upset, b) wouldn't be very surprised when it turned up late and c) would plan around the possibility that it would be. But if you tell someone that Trump has a 1 in 3 chance of being elected President - or conversely that Clinton has a 2 in 3 chance - they take it as a near-certainty and then panic horribly when it comes off.

I like Harry Kane.

 

[TommyGee]

The model gave Trump a 30% chance or so, and put Clinton's lead at 3.5 points when in reality it was 2 points. He'd also warned multiple times that a 3.5 points margin was not safe, that the average error in American polls historically was around 3 points, and that a narrow Clinton win could see Trump take the electoral college. They also gave the Republicans a 49.3% chance of winning the Senate and as good as guaranteed them to win the House, so not sure how you can say that's misjudged.

The problem really is that for whatever reason people see a small polling lead as a guarentee and act as though it's a massive shock when the result narrowly goes the other way. If someone's train had a 1 in 3 chance of being late on any given morning, they'd a) be very upset, b) wouldn't be very surprised when it turned up late and c) would plan around the possibility that it would be. But if you tell someone that Trump has a 1 in 3 chance of being elected President - or conversely that Clinton has a 2 in 3 chance - they take it as a near-certainty and then panic horribly when it comes off.

Kane scores his 5th hattrick, his 7th goal for the week and secures his second consecutive golden boot.. and we're here talking about fucking Trump.

FFS

 

[voxy28]

Surely a new contract worth 150kpw.....

 

[dimiSpur]

Does anyone else prefer the extremely single minded version of Harry where he just basically decides he's going to score a hattrick? The way he's played the last two matches reminds me of Ronaldo at Madrid. Scoring for fun and almost at will.

I hope he continues in the same, almost selfish, way next season.

 

[bubble07]

anyone have current stats for the top scorers in the top 5 leagues for the golden shoe award?

 

[buttons]

MOTD last night, Wrighty (who i actually like as a pundit) said he was on the same level as Benzema. Lineker scoffed and said his stats put him on the same level as 'those two'

He is an exceptional striker and i still can't quite believe that a) we have him and b) that its the same Harry Kane who spent what felt like a lifetime out on loan!

 

[Kiedis]

Some football analysts questioned whether Kane could keep scoring at the rate he did in his first season, seeing as he generally scored more goals than the quality of chances he got would generally yield. Now, a couple of seasons later, we can safely say that it's due to the quality of his finishing, and more than anything his quality from range.

Three goals from 20-25 yards in four days, and 6 outside the box (I think) in total this season.

 

[mark87]

Surely a new contract worth 150kpw.....

What trump?

 

[dimiSpur]

Some football analysts questioned whether Kane could keep scoring at the rate he did in his first season, seeing as he generally scored more goals than the quality of chances he got would generally yield. Now, a couple of seasons later, we can safely say that it's due to the quality of his finishing, and more than anything his quality from range.

Three goals from 20-25 yards in four days, and 6 outside the box (I think) in total this season.

He truly is a world class striker and I honestly wouldn't swap him for any other striker in the world. His love for the club is just so wonderful to see. Looking at him I see how I would play for Spurs as a fan (obviously passion-wise not ability wise, as I'm better).

 

[Chris Finch]

MOTD last night, Wrighty (who i actually like as a pundit) said he was on the same level as Benzema. Lineker scoffed and said his stats put him on the same level as 'those two'

He is an exceptional striker and i still can't quite believe that a) we have him and b) that its the same Harry Kane who spent what felt like a lifetime out on loan!

Im with you in that I like Wrighty as a pundit. However the Benzema shout is such a lazy one just because he plays for Madrid. He's overrated.....Harry is streets ahead of him