twinkletoes
Well-Known Member
DontLookBackInAnger said:
Like I said you can prove anything with statistics.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The "Trajectory"
- Thread starter tamworthblue
- Start date
Like I said you can prove anything with statistics.
twinkletoes said:tamworthblue said: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.
The decision was taken after the Spurs game though, when we had 26 points from 16 games, which equals 1.625 points per game. That taken over a season = 61 points.
That said, I doubt the decision to sack him was based on something like that. More so the lack of wins and the defensive frailties, which they felt didn't seem like changing.
tamworthblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2008
- Messages
- 504
twinkletoes said:tamworthblue said: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.
Well, that's one way of doing it but the whole point was to look at Cook's so called trajectory. i.e. the trend.
Put simply, average of first 8 games was 2.125 points per game. Average of last 8 games was 1.125 points per game. We got seriously worse for whatever reasons.
twinkletoes
Well-Known Member
Project said:twinkletoes said: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.
The decision was taken after the Spurs game though, when we had 26 points from 16 games, which equals 1.625 points per game. That taken over a season = 61 points.
That said, I doubt the decision to sack him was based on something like that. More so the lack of wins and the defensive frailties, which they felt didn't seem like changing.
Nobody knows when the decision was made. The media are reporting today that the decision was made in May or June.
vonksbignose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 1,676
DontLookBackInAnger said: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?twinkletoes said: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.
This is the point that keeps on getting me, everyone saying "well if he'd won his next 2, he'd be bang on target"!
That is precisely the problem the board were faced with; there is nothing in his record of results to suggest he was going to win the next 2, so why would that be a plausible possibility at this point?
The media are giving the board pelters for dodgy reasoning, whilst all the time using dodgy reasoning of their own to do it with!
D
D
Deleted member 14625
Guest
tamworthblue said:Since GC came out and told us the target for this season was 70 points and that the trajectory was clearly below this, I thought I'd check it out.
A good way to do this is to use a moving average (MA) to predict future points (on recent past form) and add these future points to those already in the bag. After the Spuds game we had played 16 so use an 8 game MA.
Game Pts Total Pts. 8MA Games Left Finish Pts
1 3 3
2 3 6
3 3 9
4 3 12
5 0 12
6 3 15
7 1 16
8 1 17 2.125 30 17+64=81
9 1 18 1.875 29 18+54=72
10 1 19 1.625 28 19+46=65
11 1 20 1.375 27 20+37=57
12 1 21 1.125 26 21+29=50
13 1 22 1.250 25 22+31=53
14 3 25 1.250 24 25+30=55
15 1 26 1.250 23 26+29=55
16 0 26 1.125 22 26+25=51
Those blues saying that Hughes was on target might want a rethink?
Why dont you just predict we'll get 3 points in our next 2 games (which will take us up to 19 games played) then multiply our points by 2!
That'd be 64 points!
twinkletoes
Well-Known Member
vonksbignose said:DontLookBackInAnger said: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?
This is the point that keeps on getting me, everyone saying "well if he'd won his next 2, he'd be bang on target"!
That is precisely the problem the board were faced with; there is nothing in his record of results to suggest he was going to win the next 2, so why would that be a plausible possibility at this point?
The media are giving the board pelters for dodgy reasoning, whilst all the time using dodgy reasoning of their own to do it with!
It's just another example of Cook's ham-fisted way of dealing with things allowing for people to misinterpret what he says.
D
D
Deleted member 14625
Guest
tamworthblue said:twinkletoes said: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.
Well, that's one way of doing it but the whole point was to look at Cook's so called trajectory. i.e. the trend.
Put simply, average of first 8 games was 2.125 points per game. Average of last 8 games was 1.125 points per game. We got seriously worse for whatever reasons.
Because we kept drawing! I dont think our performances were getting any better or worse!
DontLookBackInAnger
Well-Known Member
Well what that proves to me is we suck away from home and having been to most of those matches, I agree. Do you hold another view, with regards our form away from home under Hughes???twinkletoes said:DontLookBackInAnger said: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?
Like I said you can prove anything with statistics.
twinkletoes said:Project said:The decision was taken after the Spurs game though, when we had 26 points from 16 games, which equals 1.625 points per game. That taken over a season = 61 points.
That said, I doubt the decision to sack him was based on something like that. More so the lack of wins and the defensive frailties, which they felt didn't seem like changing.
Nobody knows when the decision was made. The media are reporting today that the decision was made in May or June.
?? Clearly the decision to offer Mancini a contract was after the Spurs game. They may have discussed contingency plans as far back as the summer, but that's a hell of a long way from actually sacking the manager.