The "Trajectory"

[magoo]

be interested to see this calculation for the (last years) top 4

 

[Gordyola]

Was going to do this myself, just in time I saw yours Great work, thanks!

 

[OxBlue]

What it seems to prove/indicate, is what we already knew, a run of draws absolutely slides your points average down and are almost useless, they may save you from relegation compared to defeats, but they won't climb you up a table.

The fact we're 6th shows how mixed up the league is this year.

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

What it seems to prove/indicate, is what we already knew, a run of draws absolutely slides your points average down and are almost useless, they may save you from relegation compared to defeats, but they won't climb you up a table.

The fact we're 6th shows how mixed up the league is this year.

Other than most seasons you can go down with 38points!

 

[twinkletoes]

What it shows is that you can prove anything with statistics.

 

[1894]

Mmmm ???

E=MC2

Pi = 3.14159265

Only jesting good buddies...

The average was 1.8421053 pts per game x 38 games = 70.000001pts.

After the Hull game, we should have had 24 points near as damn it, but we had 22. Fair enough, we were nearly on-target, but not quite. I wouldn't have sacked Hughes for that, especially with a game in hand still.

Cook's trajectory seemed to take into account some plausible variables, such as future expectations (no fundamental change) or winnable matches in next few games, and so on.

Whatever, I think he's blinded everyone with corporate BS - graphs, projections, targets, business-speak etc.

It was all those draws that did for Hughes, and the 'trajectory' was the cover used to bring Mancini in.

I'm behind Mancini 100% but if City had won some of those drawn games and were still on target - what then ?

They still had been planning for a change of manager since summer it seems. Hughes was on a short lifeline whichever way results went.

Sooner Cook goes, the better I'll feel...

Glad to get that off my chest.

 

[tamworthblue]

What it shows is that you can prove anything with statistics.

I never said it's written in stone, mate! It just shows our dip in form and where we might end up.

As another poster said, a run of 7 draws pretty much says it all anyway, without the statistical bollocks.

 

[twinkletoes]

What it shows is that you can prove anything with statistics.

I never said it's written in stone, mate! It just shows our dip in form and where we might end up.

As another poster said, a run of 7 draws pretty much says it all anyway, without the statistical bollocks.

17 games 29 points, win the next two games (Stoke and Wolves) 35 points. 19 games at 35 point X 2 equals 70 points, 38 games.

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

I never said it's written in stone, mate! It just shows our dip in form and where we might end up.

As another poster said, a run of 7 draws pretty much says it all anyway, without the statistical bollocks.

17 games 29 points, win the next two games (Stoke and Wolves) 35 points. 19 games at 35 point X 2 equals 70 points, 38 games.

Under Hughes we won 4 out of 28 games on the road, what makes you think all of a sudden that would have changed, to allow us to win at Wolves? I'm sick to death of hearing if this happens and that happens ALL last season we had "ohhhh we are in a false postion in the league" or "My teams play better in the 2nd half of the year"
At the end of each month last season:
3rd
8th
8th
14th
13th
10th
10th
10th
7th
and finished 10th so other than playing crap in from Late Oct to Xmas it was pretty much stable all season(if anything after a good start we faded a bit).

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

A moving average is not a predictor of future trends. It's a way of flattening out short term movements and shwoing longer term historic trends.

I used a more useful one. I assumed 2.3 points per home game and 1.4 per away game to get us to 70 points at the end of the season.

After 8 at home and 9 away we should have had 31 points on that basis and we actually have 29. If we were to win on Saturday we would have 32 against a target of 33.3. Not a million miles away.

I'll agree it's not a predictor, more of an indicator. Where did you get your 2.3 and 1.4 from?

I looked at the typical points for 4th place in the last few seasons (average 73 points) and averaged them then rounded them down but realised I worked it out wrong. Should be 2.1 per home game and 1.6 per away game.

That would give us a predicted target of 31.2 after 17 games (8H 9A) and 33.3 after 18 so not much different.