Survive if we convert 1-in-3 draws into wins?

[Tamworthram]

7 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

You may be right! I'll have to get out a piece of paper* and work out the ppg.

* Or ... I could break out my new early-Christmas Galaxy Tablet and see if it can really replicate a pad of paper.

One of these high tech devices should be all you need ?

[Ken Tram]

Post Blackpool (Played 22)

Target Team -  Cardiff City
P:22 W:06 D:04 L:12 = 22 Pts (After 22 played)
P:46 W:13 D:08 L:25 = 47 Pts (Final: on current form)

Survival Target:
47 Pts (1.79 per game)

Equivalent form:
Blackburn Rovers (4th)"

Derby County
P:22 W:05 D:10 L:07 = 25-21 = 04 Pts (After 22 played)
P:46 W:10 D:21 L:15 = 51-21 = 30 Pts (Final: on current form)
P:46 W:16 D:20 L:10 = 68-21 = 47 Pts (Final: with conversions*

* Draws into wins: 1 in 1.8 (55% of games we've been drawing)
* Losses into draws: 1 in 3.0 (33% of games we've been losing)

[Yani P]

Target team are reading right now

[Ken Tram]

I do not think that it is reading because they have also had points deducted ... so their predicted end of season points will take them well above bottom 3 or 4. The target team is the team currently predicted to finish 21st.

[Ken Tram]

On 07/12/2021 at 18:45, Tamworthram said:

I admire your attempt at searching for silver linings but I’m not sure I follow your logic or how us and our target teams all losing can be positive (except of course they didn’t win or draw). Over the course of the remaining games we need to better their points tally. Any weeks that we don’t reduces our opportunity to close the game by another game.

 

4 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

I do not think that it is reading because they have also had points deducted ... so their predicted end of season points will take them well above bottom 3 or 4. The target team is the team currently predicted to finish 21st.

You had me worried! Based on form so far this season, and point deductions, my little spreadsheet expects the following end of season points (just based on teams getting the same ratio of wins:draws:losses as they have done so far this season.

Cardiff City 47 points

Reading 51 points

This is why, although Reading are currently in 21st, based upon form to date (and the 6 points deduction that Reading have), I have used Cardiff City as the target team.

..........

Thanks v much for pointing out the possible error - much appreciated!

[Ken Tram]

On 08/12/2021 at 16:12, Tamworthram said:

I feel you must be right but it still doesn’t make any sense to me how we can better off than our target teams if we all lose.

We are currently 21 points behind Cardiff with 25 games remaining which means we need 0.84 points per game just to close the game.

Before the weekend, when we both lost, we were still 21 points behind but we had 26 games remaining meaning our required points per game was slightly lower at 0.80. 
 

Using your logic, if we’re better off if we all lose, at what point would this longer be true? At the end of the season, as you rightly say, the target for survival will reduce each week ((down to 21 by season end) but we’d have run out of games. Target points is only half the story. You also need to factor in the number of remaining games.

I will try to think of a better way to explain it. For now, what I can say is ... you are counting the gap - but we need to also count the points that both teams will get. Aha, you might say, but those will be the same for both teams. You might say that if Cardiff get 25 more points then we will need 25 + 21 points, so the gap will still be 21 points.

But, we are scoring points at a faster rate than Cardiff. We have had 12 points deducted. (I wish) We have had 21 points deducted! So, even though both teams lost, their final tally of points reduces by less than our final tally of points. That is why the gap (not the current gap - but the gap at the end of the season taking into account the points deduction) happened to reduce by one point, even though both teams lost. 

You are still making me question my calculations - which is good - I suspect that the only way to check and/or explain it will be to draw a graph of some sort! (Which I will try to do one day - but others have already been encouraging me to go out more!!! ?

[Tamworthram]

2 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

 

You had me worried! Based on form so far this season, and point deductions, my little spreadsheet expects the following end of season points (just based on teams getting the same ratio of wins:draws:losses as they have done so far this season.

Cardiff City 47 points

Reading 51 points

This is why, although Reading are currently in 21st, based upon form to date (and the 6 points deduction that Reading have), I have used Cardiff City as the target team.

..........

Thanks v much for pointing out the possible error - much appreciated!

I’m not sure which one of us really isn’t getting it and therefore don’t think it’s worth prolonging the debate.

All I was saying is that if we only match the results of the “target” teams then it can’t be a good thing as it’s one less week to make up the existing points difference. We weren’t talking about “current form”. We were simply talking about whether we were better or worse off after a week when we all lost. There then being fewer games to make up the difference, therefore a higher ppg would be required in the remaining games just to close the gap therefore our position worsened.

[Ken Tram]

1 minute ago, Ken Tram said:

but others have already been encouraging me to go out more!!! ?

If I lived in Nottingham, then I might be tempted to go out and catch a tram!

Thank goodness that things are not as bad as that!

[Ken Tram]

On 08/12/2021 at 16:12, Tamworthram said:

I feel you must be right but it still doesn’t make any sense to me how we can better off than our target teams if we all lose.

We are currently 21 points behind Cardiff with 25 games remaining which means we need 0.84 points per game just to close the game.

Before the weekend, when we both lost, we were still 21 points behind but we had 26 games remaining meaning our required points per game was slightly lower at 0.80. 
 

Using your logic, if we’re better off if we all lose, at what point would this longer be true? At the end of the season, as you rightly say, the target for survival will reduce each week ((down to 21 by season end) but we’d have run out of games. Target points is only half the story. You also need to factor in the number of remaining games.

So, I drew a little graph, and you were right!

Except ... the graph is not a neat line with a gradient of 0.8 or 0.84 points per game because the teams go up in jumps of 1 points and 3 points!

And, so, I think that the answer to your conundrum is that the reason that the points to survival target went down was because the ratio of wins:draws:losses came out in Derby's favour. A bit like when you add up a list of percentages and they equal 99% or 101% because of rounding up or down each figure one by one. This is similar, but just that the remaining 25 (or 26) games had to be shared between games worth 3 points, 1 point and 0 points - rather than 0.8 per game.

However, another reason might have been that after 20 games, the target team was Cardiff City, but after 21 games, the target team was Hull City! (I hope that I didn't get the target teams wrong!)

 

 

 

[Tamworthram]

38 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

So, I drew a little graph, and you were right!

Except ... the graph is not a neat line with a gradient of 0.8 or 0.84 points per game because the teams go up in jumps of 1 points and 3 points!

And, so, I think that the answer to your conundrum is that the reason that the points to survival target went down was because the ratio of wins:draws:losses came out in Derby's favour. A bit like when you add up a list of percentages and they equal 99% or 101% because of rounding up or down each figure one by one. This is similar, but just that the remaining 25 (or 26) games had to be shared between games worth 3 points, 1 point and 0 points - rather than 0.8 per game.

However, another reason might have been that after 20 games, the target team was Cardiff City, but after 21 games, the target team was Hull City! (I hope that I didn't get the target teams wrong!)

 

 

 

But does your little graph show that, regardless of who the target team is, we were still the same number of points behind (because we all lost) and therefore, with one less game left to close the existing gap, our minimum points required per remaining game went up (slightly) and therefore we ended up a little worse off after that weekend?

[Ken Tram]

9 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

But does your little graph show that, regardless of who the target team is, we were still the same number of points behind (because we all lost) and therefore, with one less game left to close the existing gap, our minimum points required per remaining game went up (slightly) and therefore we ended up a little worse off after that weekend?

I'm not sure what the graph shows, to be honest! but I can try to take a photo of it - and try to remember how to upload photos to the site via some photo site - which I can never remember how to do!

Does it help to think of it the other way around? If both teams had won, then the points differences would also have been the same. However, with Cardiff winning that game, it would mean that we expect that Cardiff to win more games later in the season than we had thought that they would. Therefore, although the points difference remained the same, the number of additional points that Derby would need to survive would be greater. The opposite is true when both teams lose. This effect is greater the earlier we are in the season.

In terms of points per game to close the gap - although the points per game increases if both teams lose - that doesn’t stop the overall number of points needed by the end of the season from falling.

[Tamworthram]

53 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

I'm not sure what the graph shows, to be honest! but I can try to take a photo of it - and try to remember how to upload photos to the site via some photo site - which I can never remember how to do!

Does it help to think of it the other way around? If both teams had won, then the points differences would also have been the same. However, with Cardiff winning that game, it would mean that we expect that Cardiff to win more games later in the season than we had thought that they would. Therefore, although the points difference remained the same, the number of additional points that Derby would need to survive would be greater. The opposite is true when both teams lose. This effect is greater the earlier we are in the season.

In terms of points per game to close the gap - although the points per game increases if both teams lose - that doesn’t stop the overall number of points needed by the end of the season from falling.

Yes, the number of points required falls but so does the number of games available to gain those points. That’s why I think that your logic is flawed. The simple logic for me is if the miminum ppg required has gone up then we must be worse off.

Do any of us have a clue of how many games we think we’ll win let alone Cardiff? I guess that’s where we vary. You seem to be looking at it based on on your predictions (good luck with that in this league) whereas I was commenting on the mathematical impact of that weekends results.

If we matched our target teams results every week until there are only six games left then yes, the overall number of points needed will have dropped to 20 points (the current gap) but there would only be 18 points available. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Tamworthram

[Ken Tram]

On 11/12/2021 at 20:47, Tamworthram said:

I’m not sure which one of us really isn’t getting it and therefore don’t think it’s worth prolonging the debate.

All I was saying is that if we only match the results of the “target” teams then it can’t be a good thing as it’s one less week to make up the existing points difference. We weren’t talking about “current form”. We were simply talking about whether we were better or worse off after a week when we all lost. There then being fewer games to make up the difference, therefore a higher ppg would be required in the remaining games just to close the gap therefore our position worsened.

Sorry! I haven been dodging around your question! This may answer it?

When we both lose, we have fewer games to make up the gap. You are correct!

But, if the predicted survival points tally goes down by one point, then the expected number of points that we need can go down by one; even though both teams lost.

PS. At least we'll definitely be closing the gap by 3 points on Saturday when we beat Cardiff.

A must-win 6-pointer!!!!!! Ha ha ha! COYR

[Ken Tram]

On 12/12/2021 at 08:52, Tamworthram said:

Yes, the number of points required falls but so does the number of games available to gain those points. That’s why I think that your logic is flawed. The simple logic for me is if the miminum ppg required has gone up then we must be worse off.

Do any of us have a clue of how many games we think we’ll win let alone Cardiff? I guess that’s where we vary. You seem to be looking at it based on on your predictions (good luck with that in this league) whereas I was commenting on the mathematical impact of that weekends results.

If we matched our target teams results every week until there are only six games left then yes, the overall number of points needed will have dropped to 20 points (the current gap) but there would only be 18 points available. 

But don't forget, the target team changed between Cardiff City and Hill City between the two matches. That may explain one of the things that appears to be flawed.

I'm just looking at it a different way. You can work out how many points per game we need, to catch up each game, which I think is a good number to use!

My calculations tell us how many of the games that we can expect to be drawing (based on our current form to date) need to be converted into wins - and how many losses need to be converted into draws.

You may say it's flawed -which it might be - but I think it is easier to look back at our draws so far, and try to imagine if we could convert 1-in-3 of them into wins if we could replay them now (or whatever the conversion rate had increased to now). I think that this is easier to envisage than points per game.

PS. Sadly, the main point, if you'll pardon the pun, is that both of our methods show what a challenge it will be.

One other advantage of the method that I'm trying is that it gives the equivalent form of the team that we now need to emulate. In the past four matches, that had dropped from Bournemouth (2nd in the table) to Blackburn Rovers (4th in the table).

And I think that is something that can be visualised.

Can we match the form achieved by Blackburn Rovers so far this season?

Yes- and we may well survive.

No - and we may well not survive!

Edited December 13, 2021 by Ken Tram

[Tamworthram]

51 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

Sorry! I haven been dodging around your question! This may answer it?

When we both lose, we have fewer games to make up the gap. You are correct!

But, if the predicted survival points tally goes down by one point, then the expected number of points that we need can go down by one; even though both teams lost.

PS. At least we'll definitely be closing the gap by 3 points on Saturday when we beat Cardiff.

A must-win 6-pointer!!!!!! Ha ha ha! COYR

No problem. Like I said, I was referring to actual points target just to make up the known shortfall whereas you seem to be talking about predicted target points based on what you think other teams will do - a notoriously difficult thing to do and often changes week by week. Who would have predicted that we would take 4 points off Bournemouth and Fulham but then lose at Bristol?

[Ken Tram]

42 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

No problem. Like I said, I was referring to actual points target just to make up the known shortfall whereas you seem to be talking about predicted target points based on what you think other teams will do - a notoriously difficult thing to do and often changes week by week. Who would have predicted that we would take 4 points off Bournemouth and Fulham but then lose at Bristol?

What I'm doing is saying that what a team has done in their first n games this season (their PPG so far), is a better prediction of their final points tally, than the survival tally achieved by other teams in previous seasons.

In the past seven seasons, the survival points tally has ranged from 41 to 51:

41, 43, 44, 44, 49, 49, 51.

The mean average is 46, and the median is 46.5, but 44 has been enough in three of the past four seasons.

What I haven't checked is the extent to which PPG after n games correlates to final tables of relegation form teams. And also, how the form of promotion chasers affects relegation teams. If I did that then I think that the predicted target would be more rigorous.

In terms of your point about randomness. Exactly! Football is random. It's not like basketball where 50 goals can be scored. A win in football can be down to a single piece of skill or luck. On average (!), this averages itself out, the larger the number of games that are taken into account. (It takes into account winning runs, or runs of losses, injuries or suspensions, etc. And it is simpler than using a super computer with a fancy model.)

This is a reason why taking the form over 21 games actually adds some stability to predictions because the randomness gets minimised.

... I think ...

Edited December 13, 2021 by Ken Tram

[Ken Tram]

Post Cardiff (postponed) (Played 22)

Survival Target:
47 Pts (1.79 per remaining game)

Equivalent Form Required*:
West Brom (4th)
* to be reproduced for the remaining season

Target Team Table* - Cardiff City
P:22 W:06 D:04 L:12 = 22 Pts (Current)
P:46 W:13 D:08 L:25 = 47 Pts (Final)
* Expected to finish 21st, on form-to-date

Derby County Table
P:22 W:05 D:10 L:07 = 25-21 = 04 Pts (Current)
P:46 W:10 D:21 L:15 = 51-21 = 30 Pts (Final - with form-to-date)
P:46 W:16 D:20 L:10 = 68-21 = 47 Pts (Final - with conversions*)

* Draws into wins: 1 in 1.8 (55% of games we've been drawing)
* Losses into draws: 1 in 3.0 (33% of games we've been losing)

[Ken Tram]

Post West Brom (27 Dec) (Played 23)
Survival Target:
47 Pts (1.74 per remaining game)

Equivalent Form Required*: 
West Brom (4th) 
* to be reproduced for the remaining season"

Target Team Table* -  Cardiff City
P:22 W:06 D:04 L:12 = 22 Pts (Current)
P:46 W:13 D:08 L:25 = 47 Pts (Final)
* Expected to finish 21st, on form-to-date"
 

Derby County Table

P:23 W:06 D:10 L:07 = 28-21 = 07 Pts (Current)
P:46 W:12 D:20 L:14 = 56-21 = 35 Pts (Final - with form-to-date)
P:46 W:16 D:20 L:10 = 68-21 = 47 Pts (Final - with conversions*)"

* Draws into wins: 1 in 2.5 (40% of games we've been drawing)
* Losses into draws: 1 in 3.5 (29% of games we've been losing)"

[Ken Tram]

Good news if we're beating the team that we need to emulate to survive! Happy days!

Edited December 27, 2021 by Ken Tram

[plymouthram]

We need 12 wins, 4 draws and 7 defeats then. Well we have lost 7 in the 1st half of the season, so we have to match that in the 2nd half. Double our wins and cut down on the draws. !2 winnable games, Cardiff home and away, Reading away, Sheff Utd home, Brum home, Hull home, Peterboro home, Barnsley home, Preston home, Bristol home, Blackpool away and one other which could be a surprise/shock result. 4 draws could come from  Stoke away, Forest away, Swansea away and QPR away.

But this will only happen if we start scoring more goals, Plange, Stretton or an incoming striker in the transfer window ?                                 I think its a tall order, but not impossible, we will have to see.