An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

User avatar
Sebastian the Red
Member
Posts: 854
Joined: 20 Mar 2007 12:08

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by Sebastian the Red » 24 May 2017 11:07

maffff Missed our first season up there in What about the argument that "first timers are Naive to the Premier League"?


Yeah I messaged him about it and he's going to correct it

User avatar
Sebastian the Red
Member
Posts: 854
Joined: 20 Mar 2007 12:08

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by Sebastian the Red » 24 May 2017 11:11

NewCorkSeth Reads like nonsense to me. More affects teams than the statistics he presented. Manager, money, academy, opposition change, players bought/sold.


Yes, lots of things can have an affect - and things will be distorted now, more than ever, because of the extra case and larger disparity between the leagues - but with a sample of over 20 seasons, it's interesting to look at the trends, IMO.

User avatar
NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 9519
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Wherever Nameless may be.

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by NewCorkSeth » 24 May 2017 11:23

Sebastian the Red
NewCorkSeth Reads like nonsense to me. More affects teams than the statistics he presented. Manager, money, academy, opposition change, players bought/sold.


Yes, lots of things can have an affect - and things will be distorted now, more than ever, because of the extra case and larger disparity between the leagues - but with a sample of over 20 seasons, it's interesting to look at the trends, IMO.

I agree the trends would be interesting provided they were complete. This only shows how a team should do provided nothing changes. If players are sold or poor acquisitions are made or managers leave or owners change this means nothing. Squad harmony is not included. Age of players is not included.
Perhaps most importantly investments made by existing premier league teams is also not included. If Arsenal, Tottenham, Man united, Man city, Liverpool and Chelsea all strengthen next season it will change the effect on promoted teams.
This season in the premiere league the gap between 17th and 7th was so minimal compared to previous seasons that the numbers he presents mean nothing.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by Nameless » 24 May 2017 11:24

It's a weird mish mash.
He talks of a 'model' but doesn't suggest one. Looking at how many times things have happened in isolation is not a 'model'. You talk of 'trends' but he doesn't look at trends.
He picks a load of things and pulls together numbers but doesn't really look at them in any detail or suggest that the whole thing is so much more complex. There is no justification for why he has look d at the specific things he does when he could have analysed any number of other things (number of players used, disciplinary issues, games won from a losing position, games lost from a winning position etc etc etc
Some of the ideas are just crazy. To suggest that the % of goals your top scorer gets in the Championship has an influence on how likely you are to stay in the PL for 5 years is very odd. The vast majority of teams will pretty much churn their entire team in a 5 year period, so to look at a team in a sixth year and draw any conclusions about how a different team will perform just doesn't work.
File under the Information is Beautiful category, maybe a bit of fun but ultimately of little value. I could have told him that whoever wins the playoff will have it tough next season but th n I could have told him Fulham would have had it tougher if they had been good enough to make the final, let alone win it.....

User avatar
Sebastian the Red
Member
Posts: 854
Joined: 20 Mar 2007 12:08

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by Sebastian the Red » 24 May 2017 11:34

Nameless It's a weird mish mash.
He talks of a 'model' but doesn't suggest one. Looking at how many times things have happened in isolation is not a 'model'. You talk of 'trends' but he doesn't look at trends.
He picks a load of things and pulls together numbers but doesn't really look at them in any detail or suggest that the whole thing is so much more complex. There is no justification for why he has look d at the specific things he does when he could have analysed any number of other things (number of players used, disciplinary issues, games won from a losing position, games lost from a winning position etc etc etc
Some of the ideas are just crazy. To suggest that the % of goals your top scorer gets in the Championship has an influence on how likely you are to stay in the PL for 5 years is very odd. The vast majority of teams will pretty much churn their entire team in a 5 year period, so to look at a team in a sixth year and draw any conclusions about how a different team will perform just doesn't work.
File under the Information is Beautiful category, maybe a bit of fun but ultimately of little value. I could have told him that whoever wins the playoff will have it tough next season but th n I could have told him Fulham would have had it tougher if they had been good enough to make the final, let alone win it.....


I don't think anyone's pretending it has serious statistical merit, it's just a way of passing another 5 minutes of the day.


Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by Nameless » 24 May 2017 11:41

And critiquing it is a way of passing another 5 minutes....
He seems to think it IS a serious analysis, we all love crazy stats but not sure it warrants dressing up as being something it isn't.
Still , one more in the 'reasons to be happy Fulham got beaten' category....

User avatar
Sebastian the Red
Member
Posts: 854
Joined: 20 Mar 2007 12:08

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by Sebastian the Red » 24 May 2017 12:19

Nameless And critiquing it is a way of passing another 5 minutes....
He seems to think it IS a serious analysis, we all love crazy stats but not sure it warrants dressing up as being something it isn't.
Still , one more in the 'reasons to be happy Fulham got beaten' category....


Exactly so

Forbury Lion
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 8640
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: https://youtu.be/c4sX57ZUhzc

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by Forbury Lion » 24 May 2017 13:22

They hold secured the greatest Goal Difference in a single season with +67
This was news to me.


+67
+67
We've got the record +67

User avatar
Fox Talbot
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1116
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 16:07
Location: Left Back.

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by Fox Talbot » 24 May 2017 13:22

Emphasised what a missed opportunity our2008 relegation was.

On his stats and as we thought anyway we should have done much better in 2007-8 and lasted a few more years on the back of that.


User avatar
maffff
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5457
Joined: 25 Nov 2010 09:22

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by maffff » 24 May 2017 19:47

Highlights what a loss Sidwell was.

Doesn't highlight the difference complacency setting in can be.

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by Ian Royal » 25 May 2017 11:25

Stranded
tidus_mi2 I think our poor defensive record and poor goal difference gets skewed by the odd away thrashings we've had. Otherwise we're a fairly consistent side.


What I think would be more interesting as a Stat, which he probably didn't do as not easy to get the stats, is is there any correlation between amount of clean sheets kept and performance. We kept 15 out of 46 games (32.6%), which I'm sure is massively high compared to other teams who have conceded 60+ goals in a season.

After all, it doesn't matter if you lose a game 1-0 or 7-1 but keep clean sheets in a 3rd of your games in any league and you are going to be comfortably safe at worst I would expect.

Good shout.

I think there's some merit to the article. I certainly have concerns about us taking enough chances and holding out against significantly better attacks. Hence why I've spent most of the season saying I thought we'd be better off in the long run with another season of prep in the Championship and winning the league next season (as if it's all that easy, but anyway).

There's definitely a place for stats, but it reads as a bit too stats obsessive for me. You've only got to look at our first promotion to see that we're an outlier in how well we did once promoted, finishing 8th then getting relegated when we probably should have stuck around for another season or two. Just because the majority of clubs with similar stats haven't performed well doesn't mean we're doomed.

I don't think anyone thinks that without some fairly major work we have a particularly good chance of staying up. You don't need to look at stats to work that one out.

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by Ian Royal » 25 May 2017 11:27

maffff Highlights what a loss Sidwell was.

Doesn't highlight the difference complacency setting in can be.

It does show how important good scouting and transfers are. We simply didn't make the transition to PL quality signings and relied on an aging team that had lost a key cog. Fae, Halford, Duberry, Rosenior, Cisse, Kebe - woeful transfers for the level we were trying to compete at. And massive overspending on them considering their quality.

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6362
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by SCIAG » 25 May 2017 11:59

Of our promoted side, we failed to upgrade on Murty despite signing three right backs in three windows, Sonko and Convey got serious injuries that they never properly recovered from, Little was very fragile and barely played in our relegation season, and Doyle and Lita completely lost form. Oster wasn't up to it, and so when we sold Seol we had no reliable right winger. Losing Sidwell was a small part of the problem.

That year was a very close one. Middlesbrough finished 14th with 6 extra points. Two wins over Fulham and we'd have stayed up comfortably. Any one of Sidwell, Little, Convey or Sonko available at their best would probably have made the difference.


User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7531
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by stealthpapes » 28 May 2017 14:03

1. Points are not the only indicator of how successful promoted teams are/will be in the PL.
2. Teams who score lots of goals, but are not overly reliant on 1 striker tend to do very well in the PL.
3. Teams who concede a lot of goals in the Championship do badly in the PL.
4. Teams with strong Championship defences are able to survive in the PL in the Short Term but do not stay for long if they cannot score.
5. Teams that win the Championship are more likely to not only survive in the PL, but also to go on and prosper.
6. Playoff Teams are more likely to be relegated at the first attempt and are much less likely to go on and have a prolonged stay in the PL.
7. Newcastle have a VERY strong chance of staying up. They are well positoned to go on and become an established PL side.
8. Brighton have a good chance of staying up next year and are also in with a good chance of becoming an established PL side.
9. Reading and Huddersfield are both well and truly fucked.


all seem sound.

There's something in the goal-scorer one in that styles that typically work well in the Champ is typically shit in the Prem. A team effort on the goals suggests no over-reliance on height, strength or pace in any one player.

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7531
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: An analysis of promoted teams in the play-off era

by stealthpapes » 28 May 2017 14:17

Ian Royal
maffff Highlights what a loss Sidwell was.

Doesn't highlight the difference complacency setting in can be.

It does show how important good scouting and transfers are. We simply didn't make the transition to PL quality signings and relied on an aging team that had lost a key cog. Fae, Halford, Duberry, Rosenior, Cisse, Kebe - woeful transfers for the level we were trying to compete at. And massive overspending on them considering their quality.


It wasn't just Sidwell. But we can take that as read that his loss mattered.

The most-started XI in a 4-4-2 is (over to you wiki). While you expect injuries etc, there's a remarkable lack of consistency in two key positions.

GK Marcus Hahnemann 38
RB Graeme Murty 28
CB Ívar Ingimarsson 34
CB André Bikey 14
LB Nicky Shorey 36
RM Liam Rosenior 15
CM James Harper 38
CM Brynjar Gunnarsson 18
LM Stephen Hunt 37
CF Dave Kitson 34
CF Kevin Doyle 34

Elsewhere in midfield, I think, and I'll happily work out who they were sometime, we played 11 different players in right mid that relegation season. Hence Rosenior in that team. I think Fae never played in a Reading win. You've still got another 9 players that filled that slot.

Up front, our top scorer was Kitson on a creditable 10. The others - and in particular Lita - massively underperformed.



cheers.

Over to defence - while the injury was the previous season, Sonko wasn't fit and Bikey wasn't really a centre back and the other two (Doobs, Sodje?) were not up to scratch.

Think Coppell has said he wanted to keep faith in the 05-06 players but - in an absolutely ideal world - going into that season, with the players that had left or got crocked, we went cheap on the midfield replacements and didn't do owt about the centre back. When it was clear that Lita didn't want to be there, and Long was too young, we should have moved to find a complement to Kitson.

Hindsight.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Horsham Royal, Jammy Dodger, Royals and Racers and 351 guests

It is currently 28 Mar 2024 21:36