In or Out?

[genome]

Our GD last year was massively skewed by the heavy defeats at Norwich, Fulham, Brentford & Newcastle.

If we had lost those by the odd goal our GD would've been +18

[LWJ]

Our GD last year was massively skewed by the heavy defeats at Norwich, Fulham, Brentford & Newcastle.

If we had lost those by the odd goal our GD would've been +18

You can add in Brighton and Preston as well for games we lost by 3 goals or more. So +22 if we had lost by just 1 goal in those as well.

[Muskrat]

Our GD last year was massively skewed by the heavy defeats at Norwich, Fulham, Brentford & Newcastle.

If we had lost those by the odd goal our GD would've been +18

So what you're saying is that by selectively manipulating the actual scores in games in which we played badly and were soundly beaten by better sides on the day, we can give the illusion that our goal difference for the season wasn't as bad as it actually was. Genius

[genome]

Our GD last year was massively skewed by the heavy defeats at Norwich, Fulham, Brentford & Newcastle.

If we had lost those by the odd goal our GD would've been +18

So what you're saying is that by selectively manipulating the actual scores in games in which we played badly and were soundly beaten by better sides on the day, we can give the illusion that our goal difference for the season wasn't as bad as it actually was. Genius

You've missed my point a bit. Someone made a judgment that our GD last season meant we didn't deserve to finish 3rd. It was only that bad because of 4 games across a 46 game season, and it made no difference to our league position.

[Hound]

Mess about with GD all you want, I very much doubt anyone would argue we were not of the top 5 sides at the very least last year.

[Snowflake Royal]

Our GD last year was massively skewed by the heavy defeats at Norwich, Fulham, Brentford & Newcastle.

If we had lost those by the odd goal our GD would've been +18

So what you're saying is that by selectively manipulating the actual scores in games in which we played badly and were soundly beaten by better sides on the day, we can give the illusion that our goal difference for the season wasn't as bad as it actually was. Genius

It's fairly common statistical practice to remove out lying results to avoid anomalies skewing the picture. Not in that way... but it wouldn't be unreasonable to drop our top few biggest defeats and biggest wins to see the effect it would have on the overall goal difference. Which would show that actually, bar a handful of big defeats we scored plenty and defended ok.

[leon]

Sounds like bollocks

[CountryRoyal]

Our GD last year was massively skewed by the heavy defeats at Norwich, Fulham, Brentford & Newcastle.

If we had lost those by the odd goal our GD would've been +18

So what you're saying is that by selectively manipulating the actual scores in games in which we played badly and were soundly beaten by better sides on the day, we can give the illusion that our goal difference for the season wasn't as bad as it actually was. Genius

It's fairly common statistical practice to remove out lying results to avoid anomalies skewing the picture. Not in that way... but it wouldn't be unreasonable to drop our top few biggest defeats and biggest wins to see the effect it would have on the overall goal difference. Which would show that actually, bar a handful of big defeats we scored plenty and defended ok.

Would suggest that 13% is a bit more than statistical anomalies tbf.

[genome]

4 out of 46 is 8.7%.

[Snowball]

More of interest is WHY did we do well (somehow) in 40 games
but capitulate in a few?

[Muskrat]

I'd suggest it's because we didn’t actually do that well in most of those games. We played turgid boring anti-football, got our noses in front and hung for wins.

[Snowball]

Any side can have a bad day at the office and concede a shed-load
but we did it too often, which suggests a fundamental problem.

Is the lack of goals this year partly down to Stam setting up to avoid the 5-0s?

[Hound]

Any side can have a bad day at the office and concede a shed-load
but we did it too often, which suggests a fundamental problem.

Is the lack of goals this year partly down to Stam setting up to avoid the 5-0s?

I think there is some truth in that

[LWJ]

I'd suggest it's because we didn’t actually do that well in most of those games. We played turgid boring anti-football, got our noses in front and hung for wins.

[genome]

I just don't think Stam's success last season should be used as a stick to beat him with just because he is struggling now.

[Snowball]

I just don't think Stam's success last season should be used as a stick to beat him with just because he is struggling now.

In part, you're right, but fans quite naturally hope to see improvement
in a side, especially after some significant spend.

Maybe, if we had got tenth last year, we would all be still "wait and see"...

[Hound]

I'd suggest it's because we didn’t actually do that well in most of those games. We played turgid boring anti-football, got our noses in front and hung for wins.

It's almost like you have an agenda against Stam which means you ignore the facts. But I'm sure that's not the case is it?

[Snowflake Royal]

So what you're saying is that by selectively manipulating the actual scores in games in which we played badly and were soundly beaten by better sides on the day, we can give the illusion that our goal difference for the season wasn't as bad as it actually was. Genius

It's fairly common statistical practice to remove out lying results to avoid anomalies skewing the picture. Not in that way... but it wouldn't be unreasonable to drop our top few biggest defeats and biggest wins to see the effect it would have on the overall goal difference. Which would show that actually, bar a handful of big defeats we scored plenty and defended ok.

Would suggest that 13% is a bit more than statistical anomalies tbf.

Hence the "not in that way"

[Muskrat]

I'd suggest it's because we didn’t actually do that well in most of those games. We played turgid boring anti-football, got our noses in front and hung for wins.

It's almost like you have an agenda against Stam which means you ignore the facts. But I'm sure that's not the case is it?

What, facts like we had 66% possession against Millwall, producing three shots on target and resulting in a 2-1 defeat? I don't think I'm the one ignoring the facts here...

[CountryRoyal]

4 out of 46 is 8.7%.

Was including the two 3-0s as well.

That being said, baring in mind I'm not really a statistician, isn't even 8% a bit high for an anomaly?