The Much Awaited Return of Promotion Maths

[exigo]

The aim for automatic promotion is around the 2 points per game mark.  Wolves are running at about 2.3 so are romping it.  Derby in 2nd are 1.88.  We are 1.7.

The aim for the end of Feb should be around 62 points.  Another 18 points from 8 games.  All are winnable: -

Forest (a)
Barnsley (h)
Sheff U (a)
Burton (h)
SHA (h)
Fulham (a)
Preston (h)
Sheff W (h)

I reckon we might lose the Sheff Wednesday home game. My head says 2-1.

[Clampy]

The aim for automatic promotion is around the 2 points per game mark.  Wolves are running at about 2.3 so are romping it.  Derby in 2nd are 1.88.  We are 1.7.

The aim for the end of Feb should be around 62 points.  Another 18 points from 8 games.  All are winnable: -

Forest (a)
Barnsley (h)
Sheff U (a)
Burton (h)
SHA (h)
Fulham (a)
Preston (h)
Sheff W (h)

I reckon we might lose the Sheff Wednesday home game. My head says 2-1.

Wouldn't surprise me if they scored quite early on.

[Jon Crofts]

The aim for automatic promotion is around the 2 points per game mark.  Wolves are running at about 2.3 so are romping it.  Derby in 2nd are 1.88.  We are 1.7.

The aim for the end of Feb should be around 62 points.  Another 18 points from 8 games.  All are winnable: -

Forest (a)
Barnsley (h)
Sheff U (a)
Burton (h)
SHA (h)
Fulham (a)
Preston (h)
Sheff W (h)

I reckon we might lose the Sheff Wednesday home game. My head says 2-1.

Wouldn't surprise me if they scored quite early on.

I'd like to think at least 8 points from the next 4 and that would set us up nicely for the Burton & The Undead games, win those 2 and we'd be right in there.

[Hookeysmith]

it would be great for the midlands if we, Wolves and Derby went up.

And even better if the Bitters and Blues went down - it would be like a colonic irrigation for the city

[Toronto Villa]

The aim for automatic promotion is around the 2 points per game mark.  Wolves are running at about 2.3 so are romping it.  Derby in 2nd are 1.88.  We are 1.7.

The aim for the end of Feb should be around 62 points.  Another 18 points from 8 games.  All are winnable: -

Forest (a)
Barnsley (h)
Sheff U (a)
Burton (h)
SHA (h)
Fulham (a)
Preston (h)
Sheff W (h)

I reckon we might lose the Sheff Wednesday home game. My head says 2-1.

Wouldn't surprise me if they scored quite early on.

If you’re so sure put some money on it. And why not go further and stick some on it being a bomb from a long way out. I heard the lad Reach has a decent shot on him.

[eamonn]

Of that lot Fulham might outplay us now they're finally starting to get the results that their style of play perhaps merits but I can see us winning most of the others.

Pity we're not playing Wednesday next, they are in awful form and may have new manager bounce by the time we meet.

[Toronto Villa]

Of that lot Fulham might outplay us now they're finally starting to get the results that their style of play perhaps merits but I can see us winning most of the others.

Pity we're not playing Wednesday next, they are in awful form and may have new manager bounce by the time we meet.

I think this new manager bounce is entirely a myth or one of those urban legends. I bet there are just as many teams if not more where nothing positive happens at all than a team in shit form suddenly finds a way to win. Teams tend to fire managers because they are awful. Just because manager X walks in doesn't automatically believe in themselves again.

Look at our recent record:

Lambert lost his first game vs West Ham. Sherwood lost his first actual game in charge to Stoke. Garde you could argue got a performance out of us to get a draw vs Man City but it went south fast after that. We got battered in Eric Black's first game and the rest of his short stint. RDM lost his first game as manager to Sheff Wed. Bruce got a draw and then lost.

For other teams I'm sure at times it gives the players a new voice and gets them going. But Pulis just lost to us. Pardew is giving us all laughs at the bitters. And Lambert going anywhere after he left us has been an unmitigated disaster.

[paul_e]

Of that lot Fulham might outplay us now they're finally starting to get the results that their style of play perhaps merits but I can see us winning most of the others.

Pity we're not playing Wednesday next, they are in awful form and may have new manager bounce by the time we meet.

I think this new manager bounce is entirely a myth or one of those urban legends. I bet there are just as many teams if not more where nothing positive happens at all than a team in shit form suddenly finds a way to win. Teams tend to fire managers because they are awful. Just because manager X walks in doesn't automatically believe in themselves again.

Look at our recent record:

Lambert lost his first game vs West Ham. Sherwood lost his first actual game in charge to Stoke. Garde you could argue got a performance out of us to get a draw vs Man City but it went south fast after that. We got battered in Eric Black's first game and the rest of his short stint. RDM lost his first game as manager to Sheff Wed. Bruce got a draw and then lost.

For other teams I'm sure at times it gives the players a new voice and gets them going. But Pulis just lost to us. Pardew is giving us all laughs at the bitters. And Lambert going anywhere after he left us has been an unmitigated disaster.

Nah, it definitely exists but the maths aren't as simple as it appears.  There was a book by a Warwick Business School professor (Sue Bridgewater if you're interested) a few years back that was all about applying normal management logic to football and one of the points in it was that the average sacking comes when a team is gaining around 1 point per game for a 10-12 (3month) period.  Over the next 3 months the average increases to 1.3 so roughly a 30% boost.  However it gets more complicated because if you pick teams with a 1 point per game or below average over that time who don't sack their manager they also see the average increase to a similar level (it's slightly less but that can easily be accounted for).  So on average it doesn't make a difference (however that's only averages, there's plenty of examples of it working and plenty of the new guy making a fucking mess of things) but the bounce is real.  If that makes sense.

[eamonn]

Of course it's not a constant correlation. But personally I'd rather face a team with a beleaguered caretaker still in charge than a new, more experienced manager scheming against us. A fresh face can be the difference in giving players a lift. It may well have just happened to us with Agnew.

[SoccerHQ]

Of that lot Fulham might outplay us now they're finally starting to get the results that their style of play perhaps merits but I can see us winning most of the others.

Pity we're not playing Wednesday next, they are in awful form and may have new manager bounce by the time we meet.

I think this new manager bounce is entirely a myth or one of those urban legends. I bet there are just as many teams if not more where nothing positive happens at all than a team in shit form suddenly finds a way to win. Teams tend to fire managers because they are awful. Just because manager X walks in doesn't automatically believe in themselves again.

Look at our recent record:

Lambert lost his first game vs West Ham. Sherwood lost his first actual game in charge to Stoke. Garde you could argue got a performance out of us to get a draw vs Man City but it went south fast after that. We got battered in Eric Black's first game and the rest of his short stint. RDM lost his first game as manager to Sheff Wed. Bruce got a draw and then lost.

For other teams I'm sure at times it gives the players a new voice and gets them going. But Pulis just lost to us. Pardew is giving us all laughs at the bitters. And Lambert going anywhere after he left us has been an unmitigated disaster.

Think Sherwood won 3 of his first 5 here so considering when he came in we hadn't won for three months that was certainly new manager bounce.

It dosen't always have to be winning your first game but say over a month-6 week period. Hodgson at Palace would be a good example of that. Actually lost his first three but look how much they've improved since.

[Toronto Villa]

I’d like to take a look at some stats where it has gone abysmally wrong like with Garde or at Albion with Pardew. I’m not dismissing the entire notion that a new face, voice, ideas has an impact where the situation may not have become absolutely dire. But I think the underlying belief that a change in manager guarantees any kind of bounce I think is a little overplayed.

[eamonn]

Fair enough. Now let's just beat Sheffield Wednesday, regardless of who they have geeing them up when that match comes around

[olaftab]

OK I have concluded that we will get promoted in second place despite Bruce.

[GarTomas]

Of that lot Fulham might outplay us now they're finally starting to get the results that their style of play perhaps merits but I can see us winning most of the others.

Pity we're not playing Wednesday next, they are in awful form and may have new manager bounce by the time we meet.

I think this new manager bounce is entirely a myth or one of those urban legends. I bet there are just as many teams if not more where nothing positive happens at all than a team in shit form suddenly finds a way to win. Teams tend to fire managers because they are awful. Just because manager X walks in doesn't automatically believe in themselves again.

Look at our recent record:

Lambert lost his first game vs West Ham. Sherwood lost his first actual game in charge to Stoke. Garde you could argue got a performance out of us to get a draw vs Man City but it went south fast after that. We got battered in Eric Black's first game and the rest of his short stint. RDM lost his first game as manager to Sheff Wed. Bruce got a draw and then lost.

For other teams I'm sure at times it gives the players a new voice and gets them going. But Pulis just lost to us. Pardew is giving us all laughs at the bitters. And Lambert going anywhere after he left us has been an unmitigated disaster.

Nah, it definitely exists but the maths aren't as simple as it appears.  There was a book by a Warwick Business School professor (Sue Bridgewater if you're interested) a few years back that was all about applying normal management logic to football and one of the points in it was that the average sacking comes when a team is gaining around 1 point per game for a 10-12 (3month) period.  Over the next 3 months the average increases to 1.3 so roughly a 30% boost.  However it gets more complicated because if you pick teams with a 1 point per game or below average over that time who don't sack their manager they also see the average increase to a similar level (it's slightly less but that can easily be accounted for).  So on average it doesn't make a difference (however that's only averages, there's plenty of examples of it working and plenty of the new guy making a fucking mess of things) but the bounce is real.  If that makes sense.

It’s called reverting to the mean,

In the same way if Man City sacked Pep now and put a new manager in charge their average points per game is likely to drop.

[Duncan Shaw]

We will lose at Fulham, I'm going, sorry, I've never seen us win there!