Our 5th placed position..... exploding the myth?

Interesting stuff here... and something to bear in mind.

http://thespectatorsview.com/2013/10/01/5th-place-was-a-statistical-anomaly-says-forbes/

For all of our fans who claim that Newcastle United are destined to finish in the upper echelons of the Premier League this season purely on the basis that 2 seasons ago we finished 5th, listen up!

Statistical research from the famous Forbes magazine have concluded that it was always likely for Newcastle United to fall away drastically without major investment, as well as claiming that we far overreached and bucked statistics by even finishing 5th. I have heard so many claim what a fantastic manager we have for guiding us to 5th, and what a wonderful owner we have for getting us back into Europe. Well you can quit that now, because apparently it was one giant fluke.

Many of us thought at the time, myself included, that we would go on to have a relatively successful season last season with the squad that we had. However, it became incredibly apparent that we clearly did not have a big enough squad to cope with the rigours of the Premier League.

What’s more, we now have a numerically weaker squad from the squad that finished last season, having only made 1 first team addition with the loan signing of Loic Remy. So it would appear that not only did we not learn from the mistake of not strengthening when we finished 5th, we actually went and repeated that mistake over the summer by not strengthening once more.

Here is the statement that was released in Forbes magazine,


‘Last season Newcastle completed one of the worst season to season points drops in the history of the Premier League. The Toon finished 2011/12 in 5th place with 65 points from a +5 goal difference, which meant that they were going to have to make a number of changes in the close season or face a regression in points total and table position more in line with their goal difference.

There was minimal player movement (Anita the only first team squad signing) into the club in the summer 2012 transfer window, the net sum of actions in the January 2013 window doing little to change Newcastle’s fate at the end of the season. They would finish the 2012/13 season with 24 less points, 11 places lower in the table, and a -23 goal difference as they avoided relegation by only five points.

While few would have predicted such a drop from one season to the next, there was little doubt that Newcastle’s points total had greatly outperformed their actual play on the pitch and the resultant goal difference in 2011/12. Historical data suggest teams that outperform their goal difference as Newcastle did (+10 points) often regress towards the mean next season.’

“While few would have predicted such a drop from one season to the next, there was little doubt that Newcastle’s points total had greatly outperformed their actual play on the pitch and the resultant goal difference in 2011/12″ – it is this little snippet that I find most interesting.

An apt explanation for why we regressed so far last season was that we should not have even been up in 5th place in 2011/12 and this is proven by historical data of the Premier League. Factors like Chelsea and Liverpool under-performing, as well as Everton not being as competitive were as much factors in our 5th place finish as our own play was. Perhaps even more so.

Although, if Newcastle United regressed towards the mean last season (16th) then that is a very worrying turn in fortunes. I do not think with the squad that we have that we will be fighting relegation this season, however I do not foresee us finishing within the top 10, nor do I see us finishing within the top 10 for the foreseeable future.

What do you think? Do you agree that our 5th place finish was a statistical blip? Or were we more worthy of 5th than these statistics seem to indicate? I’d love to hear your views.

 

No statistics are a load of bollocks. We finished 5th because our play dicatated we should. We finished 16th because we were utter gash. We were unlikely to ever back the 5th place finish because run things on a shoestring. Whilst greater investment would not have guaranteed us finishing top 5 again, it may have seen do better than we did. The club is rotten at the core presently and I've lost all hope.

 

If statistics worked, West Ham with Sam "Laptop" Allardyce would be top 6.

 

It's classically old fashioned to dismiss statistics - they did it in baseball until people started to become very successful using statistical analysis. Problem with football is it's a much more complex game so statistics that matter are harder to pinpoint. However, some things have been proven in the long run that most clubs aim for these days.

That aside, even if finishing 5th was a statistical anomaly.., what's to say finishing 16th wasn't also? Much more likely to finish either side if a mean of about 9th than much further one way or another.

Anyway I think Pardew deserves the chance to prove himself after his first season, but he may now be on last chance saloon. We'll see.

 

Everyone knows 5th was a fluke. As the article says, if the traditional top 6 were on their normal form we wouldn't get a look in.

 

Football is far too complex and fluid to be worked out via statistics. They have their uses but they are far more limited than in say cricket or baseball. The importance some people (some managers too) place on them in working out where it went wrong is comical. Its far easier to use your own eyes.

 

Think you missed the point of what I said there

 

HAte to say it, but it's a classic reaction to statistics, that is.. ;-) "I can see it with my own eyes"... point is that you can't. Statistics give us insights into things we didn't realise. For example a team only scores from a corner once every 9 games on average (a lot less for us ha ha!), and yet people still see it as a good goal scoring chance when you get a corner. Stuff that people miss with their own eyes.

 

I think noting it as a classic reaction to statistics is what a statistician has had people believe! The reality is that in football, it has only minimal use. If you are coaching a team, you are very likely to realise what the strengths and weaknesses are. It may help push you more in a certain direction, but it is very likely you have noted it with your own eyes. The corner example makes me smile. Corners are just part and parcel of a game of football, you simply have to be the best at each facet of the game you can through practice. Why do people go on about it being a good chance to score nowadays? Its because the statistics men have gone about producing statistic league tables on how each team does. Its classic management by statistics.

The other thing statistics do is mislead. Again the corner example is a good one. The key words being "on average". So it takes an average across all teams. Yet if you have a really tall team with good attackers of the ball, with a good set piece coach, a dead ball expert delivery, it probably does become a decent opportunity to score! Man U last year would be a prime example, I'm sure they scored about 14 or 15 goals from corners. Over 38 games and out of the 80 odd goals they scored, 14 or 15 suggests corners were indeed a good opportunity to score for them.

Its too easy to make statistics fit from what I can see.

 

Man U scored how many goals from corners? That sounds a bit like a statistic to me ;-) seems you aren't as immune as you think.

Plus isn't that a statistical anomaly? Will they score 15 again this season? I doubt it.

How do you know that Man U dont score more than others from corners as they know statistically the place to aim the ball where they're most likely to score? A corner is v similar to a baseball "play" so why not?

 

Also... Couldn't pards invest in a player who is statistically more likely to win aerial battles, and gets a high proportion of headers on target, to improve our chances of scoring from a corner? Could you tell me who does that in Europe - who's number 1- without looking at statistics and just using you eyes? You'd be lucky.

 

I don't think I'm immune and would never say so, I just don't believe in some modern schools of thinking where they place too much importance on it.

Knowing Man U scored quite a few corners was not as a result of reading statistics. It comes from watching them and marvelling at their routines and how effective they are (we suffered first hand). Same with Stoke and their use of blockers. The statistic of how many is not really important. If I'd said "they score a lot of corners", it would have the same relevance.

I don't think I can say "know", I can only give my opinion based on real evidence. I believe from watching the likes of Stoke and Man U that scoring from corners is as a result of well drilled training. So whilst I do not believe that corners represent one of the best opportunities to score, I do believe with good training/personnel, it can be an effective way of gaining an advantage over your rivals.

Statistics are not required to know this.

As for investing in players based on particular statistics, I think that would be a horrific mistake. The danger is you take your eye off the other aspects of their game. Very simply we'll take Vidic. I'd imagine SAF said to his scouting network something along the lines of "I want a commanding centre back who fits the profile of players I've had in the past who have proved successful. We have Rio to bring the ball into midfield but I want a Bruce, Stam type to complement him. It would be handy if they chip in with the odd goal." The scouts have then scoured Europe to find this imposing figure. In watching Vidic they've probably noted he meets the profile well, an noted he scored the odd goal from set pieces too. They may have perused the stats to back it up but it would not have been a prominent part of signing the player.

 

Does it not depend on who statistically gets the most corners?

There's not much point bursting your balls to get a powerful header of the ball and working night and day on corner routines if statistically you only average 3 corners a season.

It's a bit like the *****phile who moves into a town which statistically has the most kids in the country and asks another *****phile who's lived there for years " where's the best place to find children " and the bloke replies " Oh, it's swings and roundabouts "

 

I think the statistics of a +5 goal difference and a the 5th place finish is indicative of the fact that under Pardew when it goes wrong it goes spectacularly wrong and when we win it's usually just by the odd goal.

During Pardew's reign we have lost by 4 or more goals 7 times and only won once by 4 or more. 7 times is quite a lot in 2 and a half seasons.

 

That's fcking shocking. Is there anyone with a worse record?