Wolves underperform at Molineux against teams at the lower end -discuss

[Deleted Cyber]

All DW and I played a game of stat tennis on the build up thread and I found it really interesting but it wasnt the right thread. Basically I believe that as a top half side we have consistently underperformed in the championship against teams from the bottom four when we are at home. I am compiling some data to support this today and will post it with the theories behind it here later for anyone who is interested.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I've got an open mind and I'm interested in how you seek to prove your theory. For now though having done my own research (see t'other thread) I think it's as much a fallacy as the Manager of the Month jinx, Wolves being rubbish on TV or ex-players always scoring against us.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

If analysing football was an exact science we would all win the pools every week. Even though it is a game of skill rather than chance there are numerous other factors that effect results but I want to keep it simple .On the balance of probabilities and based on the evidence , analyse if my beloved Wolves do underperform at Home against the bottom sides I need to look at how other teams who are as good perform against the same sides in the same season. This I will do. In addition to that I need to make certain footballing assumptions in the collection of the data namely
1. The home side is likely to win 50% of the time
2. The draw is a possibility 25% of the time
3. An away win is a possibility 25% of the time

Whilst this is very rudimentary it does mean that teams in the top eight should all win at least 11.5 home games a season. As you cant win half a game 11 is close enough

I then randomly selected 4 championship years between 2001 and 2008 and included our highest and lowest position season to give Wolves as much chance to over perform as possible. The years were 04/5 5/6 7/8/ 8/9.

So how many sides did not win 11 home games in each of those seasons?
05 =2 Derby 10 and Sheff Utd 9
06 = 1 Wolves 9
07 = 2 Palace 9 Watford 8
08=0

So in the control data out of 32 occurrences only 5 times has a team in the top 8 won less than 11 home games. This means my estimate of top 8 teams should win at home 50% of the time is a fair one.

Now in those four seasons let us compare apples with apples. Are there any teams that appear in all 4 years? No. What about three of the years? Yes Reading and Preston.

So I will look at Reading and Preston in the years that I have chosen and see how they performed against the bottom four clubs in each year and how we did.


Team 08 05/6 0/4/05 Total Home points total record
Preston 2-1-1 , 2-2-0, 3-1-0, 7-4-1 25 points
Reading 2-1-1 , 4-0-0 , 4-0-0 , 10-1-1 31 points
Wolves 2-1-1 , 2-1-1 , 2-2-0 , 6-4-2 22 points


The conclusion I draw from these rudimentary results is that we only win against the bottom four sides in a league 50% of the time while other teams of similar status at the time in the similar position win up to 80% of the time. The only year of parity with any of the other 2 clubs was our title winning year. So I do conclude that we are weaker than other teams in a similar position when it comes to putting teams who we should be beating , to the sword.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

See, I can't really buy that. You shouldn't really pick random data sets or small sample sizes, and the years you've picked include Reading's record breaking season when they got the most points of anyone ever in the Championship and finished over 30 points clear of us, so the data's skewed. Additionally making assumptions about probability is very shaky ground indeed when you don't have evidence to back it up.

Notwithstanding that when you're seeking to prove that we "underperform" against the bottom sides then it should be in relation to our own general form, not what other teams do per se - ie Wolves beat the good teams but slip up against the dross. As I showed yesterday that really isn't the case.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

See, I can't really buy that. You shouldn't really pick random data sets or small sample sizes, and the years you've picked include Reading's record breaking season when they got the most points of anyone ever in the Championship and finished over 30 points clear of us, so the data's skewed. Additionally making assumptions about probability is very shaky ground indeed when you don't have evidence to back it up.

Notwithstanding that when you're seeking to prove that we "underperform" against the bottom sides then it should be in relation to our own general form, not what other teams do per se - ie Wolves beat the good teams but slip up against the dross. As I showed yesterday that really isn't the case.

I disagree with the probability. In over 84% of cases in the four seasons selected the top 8 teams won 11 or more home games. That backs my theory 17 times out of 20. Most of us would take those odds as it allows for your anomalies and other factors. I wanted to keep the analysis simple as stated and the % figures stacked.
Ok. You asked me to measure apples with apples, I did and got the same result. Preston have not been promoted in the years that they appear and you must agree you can only compare those from the same year. the control group is small but its a control group. Reading won the league, we won the league and Preston didnt get promoted yet by three points they out performed us against the bottom teams. There are lies , damned lies and statistics. As a mathematical probability set mine stack up albiet with a small control group. I do believe that I have shown in this basic data set that it is not a "fallacy" ( unlike the manager of the month jinx!).
However if you could give me 10 home bankers this week to prove me wrong I am willing to split the winnings! alternatively lets have a poll!

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Preston outperforming us by 0.75 points a season isn't enough to change my mind, I'm afraid...

 

[YoungWolf]

Have we actually gone through our home results against the bottom three/four from each season then? Isn't that what DW did yesterday?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Preston outperforming us by 0.75 points a season isn't enough to change my mind, I'm afraid...

The DW is not for turning lol!

 

[The Bear]

How are you defining "bottom teams"?

Do you mean the 5 or 6 teams that finished bottom at the end of the season or the ones which were in the bottom 6 when we played them? Because there's a big difference, especially at the start of the season where a poor start can see you in a falsely low position.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Have we actually gone through our home results against the bottom three/four from each season then? Isn't that what DW did yesterday?

Almost. My point is we drop HOME points when other teams of similar status dont. DW stats covered both home and away. Last year for example we won at Peterborough and were stuffed at Home. I felt that was a recurring theme given than in the 7 championship seasons from 2001-2008 despite being promoted twice and winning the league on one occasion we had lost at home to a bottom four finishing side EIGHT times and that I could not thinl of another side who were similar in that rather unfortunate statistic.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

You could turn it around and say we over performed in the premier league, beating Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham and both Manchester clubs.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

How are you defining "bottom teams"?

Do you mean the 5 or 6 teams that finished bottom at the end of the season or the ones which were in the bottom 6 when we played them? Because there's a big difference, especially at the start of the season where a poor start can see you in a falsely low position.

That is very true. We were beaten by Ipswich, Peterborough and Barnsley last year when they were below us around the bottom 3-5 but my point was to emphasise that this can be a problem for Wolves , more so than many other teams. For fairness I looked at where the teams finished. I believe that if we really trawled teams who go on good lates runs from a lowly position also take points from us at home, but I cant prove that yet!

 

[YoungWolf]

But then we were one of those underperforming teams last season, we finished below all three of those didn't we?!

 

[Deleted Cyber]

You could turn it around and say we over performed in the premier league, beating Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham and both Manchester clubs.

Agreed and that is the essence Frank. I would gladly have swapped those wins in the premier league for home victories against those around us as they are 6 pointers. Losing to teams around you when you are near the bottom is doubly dangerous. Losing to bottom teams when you are near the top costs you promotion.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

But then we were one of those underperforming teams last season, we finished below all three of those didn't we?!

Yes you get it! and the reason is cause having beaten them away - the hard bit - we lost at home!

 

[Johnny75]

Yes you get it! and the reason is cause having beaten them away - the hard bit - we lost at home!

Not at all, have you looked at their form at the time, how they were playing or who they were playing against. Unless you compare positions at the time of playing and form then the data is useless. You also need to compare who the opposition has played and what position they were in at the time. To then compare them to sides around our position then you would also need to do that same comparison. It essentially renders your statistics useless because no team will play another in the same circumstances as other teams. You are always comparing apples and pears. It is why predictions are so hard and why DW says your theory is a fallacy.

 

[Penk Wolf]

I more interested in why we've conceded all our goals in the second half this season.

 

[darlowolf64]

We were shit last season, with a shit manager who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. We didn't "under perform" in those matches. Had we been challenging for promotion/the play offs then your argument would hold water, Cyber

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Not at all, have you looked at their form at the time, how they were playing or who they were playing against. Unless you compare positions at the time of playing and form then the data is useless. You also need to compare who the opposition has played and what position they were in at the time. To then compare them to sides around our position then you would also need to do that same comparison. It essentially renders your statistics useless because no team will play another in the same circumstances as other teams. You are always comparing apples and pears. It is why predictions are so hard and why DW says your theory is a fallacy.

Please show me another team that finished in the top 10 in the championship who lost more games at homes to teams who ended up relegated or in the bottom 4? Struggling? Good cause no one matches our 8 losses since 2001 that I can find. But each to their own. I will keep providing the glasses and you can choose whether or not to wear them lol

 

[Johnny75]

I'll spell it out simply as you don't quite get my point:

Compare the teams position at the time of playing: For example Barnsley v Wolves (feb)
Compare the teams around them at the time of playing For example Barnsley v Paterborough (Dec)

What position did either of these teams hold at the time of playing them.
What was their particular form at that time (not that this is a true indicator, but for the sake of argument you have used form)
If both of the above are exactly the same then you have a comparison to be made, if not then the data is skewed. Provide that and lets have a more informed debate.

Simply saying 'they were relegated we should have beat them' is a daft argument as Frank proved when Man Utd were beaten by Wolves but still won the league. I'd also add to that in the 11-12 season Man Utd also lost to Blackburn at home and Wigan away.