Irrelevant Nick KP 0 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Premier League matches 2010-2011 Hughton 1.19 points per match (16 league matches) Pardew 1.24 points per match (17 league matches) Pardew in front, but it's quite even. (for what it's worth, this stat) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noelie 103 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Premier League matches 2010-2011 Hughton 1.19 points per match (16 league matches) Pardew 1.24 points per match (17 league matches) Pardew in front, but it's quite even. (for what it's worth, this stat) I think that is a stupid way to work things out. It all boils down to win - lose - or draw, and total points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 267 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Premier League matches 2010-2011 Hughton 1.19 points per match (16 league matches) Pardew 1.24 points per match (17 league matches) Pardew in front, but it's quite even. (for what it's worth, this stat) I think that is a stupid way to work things out. It all boils down to win - lose - or draw, and total points. Isn't the point of W-L-D to determine points, and isn't PPG the only way to compare the number of points a manger gets against another manager with a differing number of matches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlythSpartan 0 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Pardew is playing Hughton's team though.. I think the stats needed for a fair comparison would be endless, such as money spent comparative spending of other teams and of course the actual teams played in those games compared! All in all I have a lot of respect for Hughton, but very little for Pardew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 43200 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 One's a cunt. Hughton isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Premier League matches 2010-2011 Hughton 1.19 points per match (16 league matches) Pardew 1.24 points per match (17 league matches) Pardew in front, but it's quite even. (for what it's worth, this stat) I think that is a stupid way to work things out. It all boils down to win - lose - or draw, and total points. Isn't the point of W-L-D to determine points, and isn't PPG the only way to compare the number of points a manger gets against another manager with a differing number of matches? Meh, you can prove anything with 'facts'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noelie 103 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Premier League matches 2010-2011 Hughton 1.19 points per match (16 league matches) Pardew 1.24 points per match (17 league matches) Pardew in front, but it's quite even. (for what it's worth, this stat) I think that is a stupid way to work things out. It all boils down to win - lose - or draw, and total points. Isn't the point of W-L-D to determine points, and isn't PPG the only way to compare the number of points a manger gets against another manager with a differing number of matches? Wots the point in points per game? If you lose you get no points unless you'd like to think you got 1.19 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Wots the point in points per game? If you lose you get no points unless you'd like to think you got 1.19 points. Are you being deliberately dense Noelie, or am I being whooshed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 189 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 One's a cunt. Hughton isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrelevant Nick KP 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 Premier League matches 2010-2011 Hughton 1.19 points per match (16 league matches) Pardew 1.22 points per match (18 league matches) It's getting closer. (for what it's worth, this stat) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7084 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Wots the point in points per game? If you lose you get no points unless you'd like to think you got 1.19 points. Are you being deliberately dense Noelie, or am I being whooshed? I think Noelie's whooshing himself tbh. Edited April 23, 2011 by trophyshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noelie 103 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Wots the point in points per game? If you lose you get no points unless you'd like to think you got 1.19 points. Are you being deliberately dense Noelie, or am I being whooshed? I think Noelie's whooshing himself tbh. Perhaps I'm dense, perhaps I'm whooshing someone or perhaps whooshing myself, so perhaps someone should clue me in about the value of points per game or how it's determined. If it's averaging then if I played 16 games, won 5, drew 6, lost 5, then I averaged 1.24 points per game. Brilliant, I lost 5 games but can I say I averaged 1.24 points in those lost games. Whoosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrelevant Nick KP 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 Noellie, let's say 2 teams have played 38 matches each. One team has 44 points, and the other has 40 points. It doesn't matter if you take the total number of points, or average number of points, the order that the teams come in will be the same. However, if the one team has played 38 matches, and the other has played 35 matches, then the total number of points is an unfair way of judging them, because the one who has played 38 matches will have an advantage over the one who has played 35 matches. That's when we prefer to use averages. Because with averages, it doesn't matter who has played the most matches, it's completely fair between the teams. You find the average by dividing the total by the number of matches, eg. 4 points in 2 matches, comes to an average of 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noelie 103 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Noellie, let's say 2 teams have played 38 matches each. One team has 44 points, and the other has 40 points. It doesn't matter if you take the total number of points, or average number of points, the order that the teams come in will be the same. However, if the one team has played 38 matches, and the other has played 35 matches, then the total number of points is an unfair way of judging them, because the one who has played 38 matches will have an advantage over the one who has played 35 matches. That's when we prefer to use averages. Because with averages, it doesn't matter who has played the most matches, it's completely fair between the teams. You find the average by dividing the total by the number of matches, eg. 4 points in 2 matches, comes to an average of 2. Whoosh. 38 Games. ........Win.........Loss........Draw........Total Points...........Ave.PPG (1).....12 ........ 12 .......... 14 ................ 50 .................. 1.32 (2).....15 ........ 18 ........... 5 ................. 50 .................. 1.32 So wots the point in points per game? That's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonTheMag 4 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Noellie, let's say 2 teams have played 38 matches each. One team has 44 points, and the other has 40 points. It doesn't matter if you take the total number of points, or average number of points, the order that the teams come in will be the same. However, if the one team has played 38 matches, and the other has played 35 matches, then the total number of points is an unfair way of judging them, because the one who has played 38 matches will have an advantage over the one who has played 35 matches. That's when we prefer to use averages. Because with averages, it doesn't matter who has played the most matches, it's completely fair between the teams. You find the average by dividing the total by the number of matches, eg. 4 points in 2 matches, comes to an average of 2. Whoosh. 38 Games. ........Win.........Loss........Draw........Total Points...........Ave.PPG (1).....12 ........ 12 .......... 14 ................ 50 .................. 1.32 (2).....15 ........ 18 ........... 5 ................. 50 .................. 1.32 So wots the point in points per game? That's my point. Its in now ways an absolutely perfect statistic for evaluating performance, such a statistic doesn't really exist. PPG does, however, give us the most simple way to evaluate managers who have managed a different number of games. You can use other stats, like wins per game, or introduce other variables such as home games, goals scored, etc., but that is when things start to get incredibly convoluted. So for the purposes of this argument, points per game is a decent way of comparing Hughton to Pardew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabit71 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 including liverpool in the comparison seems mildly unfair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrelevant Nick KP 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 Noellie, let's say 2 teams have played 38 matches each. One team has 44 points, and the other has 40 points. It doesn't matter if you take the total number of points, or average number of points, the order that the teams come in will be the same. However, if the one team has played 38 matches, and the other has played 35 matches, then the total number of points is an unfair way of judging them, because the one who has played 38 matches will have an advantage over the one who has played 35 matches. That's when we prefer to use averages. Because with averages, it doesn't matter who has played the most matches, it's completely fair between the teams. You find the average by dividing the total by the number of matches, eg. 4 points in 2 matches, comes to an average of 2. Whoosh. 38 Games. ........Win.........Loss........Draw........Total Points...........Ave.PPG (1).....12 ........ 12 .......... 14 ................ 50 .................. 1.32 (2).....15 ........ 18 ........... 5 ................. 50 .................. 1.32 So wots the point in points per game? That's my point. Now come on, you're not trying. I've highlighted what I already wrote to you. Totals are fine when both teams have played the same number of matches, but they aren't so good when teams have played a different number of matches. And Pardew and Hughton have not had the same number of league matches this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 fuck me. I don't know who is dragging who down the most. Now and again, you get an obvious WUM/idiot.....who can seperate the two ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7084 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 The point is it is an empirical, if flawed, method of comparing the long term performance of managers. Says nothing of flair, personality, wins, money, ownership, weather, political background, manager's baileywick or which player's wife Rapedoo was porking at the time, but it does provide a rudimentary benchmark for comparison. It is of course up to the individual to assess the validity and merit of this approach. I reckon it's not pointless, hoying up KK's stats will probably reveal this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 The point is it is an empirical, if flawed, method of comparing the long term performance of managers. Says nothing of flair, personality, wins, money, ownership, weather, political background, manager's baileywick or which player's wife Rapedoo was porking at the time, but it does provide a rudimentary benchmark for comparison. It is of course up to the individual to assess the validity and merit of this approach. I reckon it's not pointless, hoying up KK's stats will probably reveal this. considering Noelie once said he "has spent 70 years dreaming of NUFC challenging for the title" [words to that effect] don't hold your breath he has any idea of the KK years. This thread has now became pointless....pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 I think you've spent too much time in the States Noelie, where a draw (sorry, a 'tie') is considered a statistical anomaly of little consequence. A hard-fought draw (or any draw for that matter) is worth a point in Association Football, and below-average teams such as ourselves can't afford to turn our nose up at any points, no matter how they're earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 I reckon it's not pointless, hoying up KK's stats will probably reveal this. Quite correct my cup-wary friend: The facts at the end of the second Keegan era... Premier league era highlighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 (edited) Noellie, let's say 2 teams have played 38 matches each. One team has 44 points, and the other has 40 points. It doesn't matter if you take the total number of points, or average number of points, the order that the teams come in will be the same. However, if the one team has played 38 matches, and the other has played 35 matches, then the total number of points is an unfair way of judging them, because the one who has played 38 matches will have an advantage over the one who has played 35 matches. That's when we prefer to use averages. Because with averages, it doesn't matter who has played the most matches, it's completely fair between the teams. You find the average by dividing the total by the number of matches, eg. 4 points in 2 matches, comes to an average of 2. Whoosh. 38 Games. ........Win.........Loss........Draw........Total Points...........Ave.PPG (1).....12 ........ 12 .......... 14 ................ 50 .................. 1.32 (2).....15 ........ 18 ........... 5 ................. 50 .................. 1.32 So wots the point in points per game? That's my point. It is, in effect, the method by which the league is decided. Surely that demonstrates its worth Edited April 24, 2011 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrelevant Nick KP 0 Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 Premier League matches 2010-2011 Hughton 1.19 points per match (16 league matches) Pardew 1.16 points per match (19 league matches) Very close mind. (for what it's worth, this stat) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now