Maffs 'n' graffs - statistical porn

[CJJ]

Strange. I can't remember 5 games where redknapp conceded 5. 5-2 at the emirates and 5-1 home to city. Were some in the cups? Real Madrid maybe?

Might be reading it wrong, the number in the rows is the number of games we've conceded the amount of goals in the column header. We shipped 5 four times under Harry - all against top 4 teams (doesn't get attacked as much as André for them though)


PREMIERSHIP Sa 25Apr 2009 Man Utd 5 - 2 Tottenham
PREMIERSHIP Su 28Aug 2011 Tottenham 1 - 5 Man City
PREMIERSHIP Su 26Feb 2012 Woolwich 5 - 2 Tottenham
FA CUP Su 15Apr 2012 Tottenham 1 - 5 Chelsea

 

[Millbanks]

Finally, last one for now, managerial 'progression' chart. If you look carefully, you'll see Mr Gross just in view. Santini and Sherwood get lost in the crowd on this one due to lack of games played

Again showing Andre's impressive stats.

You're depressing me now...:gomes:

 

[Éperons]

If you look carefully

Possible solutions toward obviating the need to look carefully:

1. Start the graph with their percentage already five matches in.
2. Flip it so that the endpoints are all in the same place, not the start points.

The latter would also help judge each manager's final win percentage in the same place, instead of looking all over the chart for each person. The way it's set up now, I don't know anything about the beginning of each manager's career (makes sense, since it's volatile), and if I want to know either a manager's duration or his final win percentage, I have to sniff around the whole area. If everything ended at the same value for x, then I'd only look around the whole chart to see durations.

 

[CJJ]

Possible solutions toward obviating the need to look carefully:

1. Start the graph with their percentage already five matches in.
2. Flip it so that the endpoints are all in the same place, not the start points.

The latter would also help judge each manager's final win percentage in the same place, instead of looking all over the chart for each person. The way it's set up now, I don't know anything about the beginning of each manager's career (makes sense, since it's volatile), and if I want to know either a manager's duration or his final win percentage, I have to sniff around the whole area. If everything ended at the same value for x, then I'd only look around the whole chart to see durations.

If it's related to the last graph, the focus really is on what happens along the way and towards the end, hence the title 'More Time?'. I don't think the focus should be on the start due to the aforementioned 'New Manager' bounce.

I think it gives a good indication that out football under Redknapp peaked in that CL season, Jol was definitely on a downward spiral and Hoddle and co were all self destructing.

If you bear in mind that it takes more losses/draws to damage the win % the more games you play, it also gives a better indication of how bad the final form was form the majority

 

[Éperons]

If it's related to the last graph, the focus really is on what happens along the way and towards the end, hence the title 'More Time?'. I don't think the focus should be on the start due to the aforementioned 'New Manager' bounce.

I fully agree, which is why I think the endpoints should be snapped together, not the start points. That way, we can see what the last 10, 20, 30, etc. matches were like. Here, I can compare AVB's 20th through 30th with Rednapp's, since they have the same x, where x = "matches from getting hired". If the endpoints were snapped together, x would mean "matches until getting sacked". Much clearer to compare specific situations that way. I've tried to skitch up an example below. It's tough to visually discern how different Ramos's and Redknapp's final ten matches in charge were, since one's eye has to jump to two different locations. But if the endpoints were snapped together, then they'd be lined up.

 

[gibbs131]

Might be reading it wrong, the number in the rows is the number of games we've conceded the amount of goals in the column header. We shipped 5 four times under Harry - all against top 4 teams (doesn't get attacked as much as André for them though)


PREMIERSHIP Sa 25Apr 2009 Man Utd 5 - 2 Tottenham
PREMIERSHIP Su 28Aug 2011 Tottenham 1 - 5 Man City
PREMIERSHIP Su 26Feb 2012 Woolwich 5 - 2 Tottenham
FA CUP Su 15Apr 2012 Tottenham 1 - 5 Chelsea

He did not get attacked because it averages as 1 drubbing a year.

 

[CJJ]

For people with selective memories - Games lost under Redknapp where we Conceded at least 4

PREMIERSHIP Sa 25Apr 2009 Man Utd 5 - 2 Tottenham
PREMIERSHIP Su 09May 2010 Burnley 4 - 2 Tottenham
LEAGUE CUP Tu 21Sep 2010 Tottenham 1 - 4 Woolwich
CHAMPIONS LEAGUE We 20Oct 2010 Inter 4 - 3 Tottenham
PREMIERSHIP Sa 06Nov 2010 Bolton 4 - 2 Tottenham
FA CUP Su 30Jan 2011 Fulham 4 - 0 Tottenham
CHAMPIONS LEAGUE Tu 05Apr 2011 Real Madrid 4 - 0 Tottenham
PREMIERSHIP Su 28Aug 2011 Tottenham 1 - 5 Man City
PREMIERSHIP Su 26Feb 2012 Woolwich 5 - 2 Tottenham
FA CUP Su 15Apr 2012 Tottenham 1 - 5 Chelsea


Again, people who want to provide "opinion" against statistics would be better served researching first. This isn't a damnation of Redknapp, as I liked him as a manager until he slapped us in the face, but it evens the board.

For comparison in context, AVB "drubbings"

PREMIERSHIP Sa 20Oct 2012 Tottenham 2 - 4 Chelsea
PREMIERSHIP Sa 17Nov 2012 Woolwich 5 - 2 Tottenham
EUROPA LEAGUE Th 14Mar 2013 Inter 4 - 1 Tottenham
PREMIERSHIP Su 24Nov 2013 Man City 6 - 0 Tottenham
PREMIERSHIP Su 15Dec 2013 Tottenham 0 - 5 Liverpool

Same criteria, slightly more justification though as no Burnley, Bolton or Fulham on there, all CL teams at least

 

[ILSpur]

I'm gonna like this thread.

 

[CJJ]

I fully agree, which is why I think the endpoints should be snapped together, not the start points. That way, we can see what the last 10, 20, 30, etc. matches were like. Here, I can compare AVB's 20th through 30th with Rednapp's, since they have the same x, where x = "matches from getting hired". If the endpoints were snapped together, x would mean "matches until getting sacked". Much clearer to compare specific situations that way. I've tried to skitch up an example below. It's tough to visually discern how different Ramos's and Redknapp's final ten matches in charge were, since one's eye has to jump to two different locations. But if the endpoints were snapped together, then they'd be lined up.

Little bit messy, but here you go

 

[gibbs131]

For people with selective memories - Games lost under Redknapp where we Conceded at least 4

PREMIERSHIP Sa 25Apr 2009 Man Utd 5 - 2 Tottenham
PREMIERSHIP Su 09May 2010 Burnley 4 - 2 Tottenham
LEAGUE CUP Tu 21Sep 2010 Tottenham 1 - 4 Woolwich
CHAMPIONS LEAGUE We 20Oct 2010 Inter 4 - 3 Tottenham
PREMIERSHIP Sa 06Nov 2010 Bolton 4 - 2 Tottenham
FA CUP Su 30Jan 2011 Fulham 4 - 0 Tottenham
CHAMPIONS LEAGUE Tu 05Apr 2011 Real Madrid 4 - 0 Tottenham
PREMIERSHIP Su 28Aug 2011 Tottenham 1 - 5 Man City
PREMIERSHIP Su 26Feb 2012 Woolwich 5 - 2 Tottenham
FA CUP Su 15Apr 2012 Tottenham 1 - 5 Chelsea

You just changed it from 5 goals to 4 goals. Don't talk about selective memories if you are going to SELECT different stats/move the goal posts.

 

[CJJ]

I'm gonna like this thread.

Even with Captain "I can't read posts fully" popping in attempting to takeover?

 

[gibbs131]

Even with Captain "I can't read posts fully" popping in attempting to takeover?

I suggest general rules like....

* No complaining about the subject
* State source for any controversial data
* No whinging about where or not your views are supported or not by a stat or graph
* Spurs related only, of course

 

[Éperons]

Little bit messy, but here you go

Much messier, you're right. I expected that volatility to subside faster. Maybe this kind of chart would work best in tableau, where you can isolate how many different variables you want shown at once. Iirc, Admin even implemented a tableau widget

 

[SandroSays]

Little bit messy, but here you go

It's really striking how all the %s before Jol quickly reach a peak high, then decline slowly.

AVB though:

 

[Mrs Perryman]

too much like hard work for my liking, but if that's what turns you boys on, go for it

 

[ILSpur]

I suggest general rules like....

* No complaining about the subject
* State source for any controversial data
* No whinging about where or not your views are supported or not by a stat or graph
* Spurs related only, of course

Can I add another? How about no arguing about...

No denial of basic mathematics.

 

[ILSpur]

Even with Captain "I can't read posts fully" popping in attempting to takeover?

Based upon those posts, everyone is going to need to ignore that new addition or this will go pear shaped before you can say "cherry picking".

 

[CJJ]

Based upon those posts, everyone is going to need to ignore that new addition or this will go pear shaped before you can say "cherry picking".

I don't know what's up there.

You can present the facts fine, unless they show anything except for complete abortion from AVB, in which case the numbers are utter shit and the matrix blue screens

 

[CJJ]

too much like hard work for my liking, but if that's what turns you boys on, go for it

I think a lot of the time there's a certain amount of media pressure, or perhaps the majority in some form of medium, who encourage us to think in a certain way (i.e. Manager 'x' is shit) but, in reality, it's not always the case.

As numbers are sort of the undeniable bread-and-butter of life, it's cool to sometimes see patterns in things too.

I respect your opinion though, some people just troll away if they don't understand or like something, much prefer honesty

 

[Joe Clash]

CJJ Top work. Thanks.