Easiest premier league start ever?? (For Tottenham)

[BernardMatthews]

I only did the top 10 teams (per this rating system) but here is the toughest to easiest fixtures after 8 games. Also, remember this metric doesn’t take away/home into account. This is based on average OPTA rating which is much more accurate than the shit graph from earlier which is using OPTA rating and then taking the world ranking (basically manipulating the stat).

1) Newcastle - 89.6
2) west Ham - 88.79
3) Liverpool - 88.74
4) Brighton - 88.3
5) Villa - 88.1
6) Woolwich - 88.05
7) United - 87.66
8) City - 86.99
9) Spurs - 86.78
10) Chelsea - 86.4

So of the 10 teams I calculated, spurs are 2nd easiest. Chelsea have had easier. Taking a quick look through the other 10 teams, Fulham, Everton, brentford and palace have only played 3 or less top 10 teams. I’m going to assume anyone that has played more has had a tougher fixture list than spurs.

Here are their numbers.

Fulham - 87.93
Everton - 85.95
Brentford - 87.16
Palace - 87.39

So without checking the last 6 teams, Everton have played the easiest fixtures, followed by Chelsea, then tottenham. It’s only 3rd easiest THIS season… can you see why saying it’s the easiest ever is just trolling to those of us that know stats?

This is actual data BernardMatthews .

Well done.

Now can you let me know which season was our easiest premier league start please using your own metric of course.

 

[bonaspur23]

Well done.

Now can you let me know which season was our easiest premier league start please using your own metric of course.

Fuck off troll

 

[BernardMatthews]

You can wait until GW37 and there'll still be some dipshit claiming we've had the easier start...

If we’re still top and have not moved from 1st at all then then you would have to admit every team we played after the 11th October was below us in the table at the time we played them.

 

[stevee]

TLDR

TLDR ?

Your view
"We're only top cos we've been unbeaten and won games. This could only happen because we've played shite teams"

My view
"WALOBS !"

 

[BernardMatthews]

Fuck off troll

It was my initial question!!! You can’t just ignore it!!

FFS.

 

[bonaspur23]

It was my initial question!!! You can’t just ignore it!!

FFS.

Fine. It’s incredibly unlikely that having the 3rd easiest start in the league would be Tottenham’s easiest start in history out of 100+ years. On average, once every 20 years we’d have the easiest. So out of the last 100 years, it’s probably somewhere between the 11th and 15th easiest over that time.

 

[BernardMatthews]

TLDR ?

Your view
"We're only top cos we've been unbeaten and won games. This could only happen because we've played shite teams"

My view
"WALOBS !"

I’m unaware of WALOBs and can’t be arsed to Google it.
Like the Beatles WALIAYS?

We all live on boats??

Good for you. Tbh I’ve always wanted a sunseeker yacht.
WALOB!

 

[BernardMatthews]

Fine. It’s incredibly unlikely that having the 3rd easiest start in the league would be Tottenham’s easiest start in history out of 100+ years. On average, once every 20 years we’d have the easiest. So out of the last 100 years, it’s probably like 15th easiest over that time.

I admire your data gathering. It’s more than I did.

Essentially what you have unearthed is Chelsea should be top. And Everton are total shit.

Personably I saw an account on instagram and looked at the league table.
And then boom….

 

[paddy spur]

I only did the top 10 teams (per this rating system) but here is the toughest to easiest fixtures after 8 games. Also, remember this metric doesn’t take away/home into account. This is based on average OPTA rating which is much more accurate than the shit graph from earlier which is using OPTA rating and then taking the world ranking (basically manipulating the stat).

1) Newcastle - 89.6
2) west Ham - 88.79
3) Liverpool - 88.74
4) Brighton - 88.3
5) Villa - 88.1
6) Woolwich - 88.05
7) United - 87.66
8) City - 86.99
9) Spurs - 86.78
10) Chelsea - 86.4

So of the 10 teams I calculated, spurs are 2nd easiest. Chelsea have had easier. Taking a quick look through the other 10 teams, Fulham, Everton, brentford and palace have only played 3 or less top 10 teams. I’m going to assume anyone that has played more has had a tougher fixture list than spurs.

Here are their numbers.

Fulham - 87.93
Everton - 85.95
Brentford - 87.16
Palace - 87.39

So without checking the last 6 teams, Everton have played the easiest fixtures, followed by Chelsea, then tottenham. It’s only 3rd easiest THIS season… can you see why saying it’s the easiest ever is just trolling to those of us that know stats?

This is actual data BernardMatthews .

 

[bonaspur23]

It’s literally what this thread is about. Don’t read it then.

 

[todd1882]

So I did some basic math and this metric thinks
that playing PSV and anderlect is equally as hard as playing Mainz and Woolwich. Anderlect (#100) and Mainz (#120) are very close in opta rating (0.9 apart), but separated by 20 places. PSV (#25) and Woolwich (#5) are also separated by 20 places (but 5.8 apart in opta rating).

Similarly, palace is 37 spots below city. So per this metric, playing man city and rangers is the same as palace and Bournemouth.

It’s not. This is taking average world ranking instead of the actual metric. So using this flawed stat will penalize teams that played the bottom and top of the table like we did and benefit teams that played more mid table.

A person that knows stats would take average opta rating instead of average world ranking and it wouldn’t be skewed like this.

Spoiler

This graph is a bit of a shitshow. You can see the metric says “using the opta power rankings of REMAINING opponents.” It looks like they are taking the last 28 games and measuring who has the hardest fixtures and then inverting it. This metric also doesn’t take home/away into account.

Last point is that this is an average of opponents numerical world ranking. As you get near the bottom of the league, the rankings get spread out more. For example the difference between anderlect and Mainz is 20 places and just 0.9 in rating so they are just about the same level. But 20 places away from Woolwich is PSV and the difference is 5.8 in rating, so Woolwich are way better.

You should call OPTA and lodge your complaint. I'm sure they will file it in the appropriate place.

 

[bonaspur23]

You should call OPTA and lodge your complaint. I'm sure they will file it in the appropriate place.

That makes no sense. You should actually learn how to read.

 

[todd1882]

That makes no sense.

You have become quite the tedious poster lately. Your complaint is with the background methodology of the graph. Fine, that is OTPA's issue...and that is why these things are sourced/cited...one can check to see if they agree or disagree with those methods. Your complaint is with them so feel free to lodge it there.

But according to their methodology/metrics, we have had the easiest start. Simple. And since all statistics are just part of/one way to see the whole, this is their way. It is neither wrong nor right...it's just one (hoepfully) elucidative way to look at the data.

If you and your vast knowledge of statistics would prefer it handled in a different manner then feel free to post those results in a similarly presentable form.

You should actually learn how to read.

So childish...that's why most places, OPTA included, choose to present their results in some type of graphic form...no need to read as a picture is worth a thousand words. Feel free to do the same.

 

[bonaspur23]

Your complaint is with the background methodology of the graph. Fine, that is OTPA's issue...and that is why these things are sourced/cited...one can check to see if they agree or disagree with those methods. Your complaint is with them so feel free to lodge it there.

I don’t think opta even created that graph. They may have created one like it that was edited by someone. The title doesn’t even line up with what it’s measuring.

it’s also measuring a stat (the average ranking of opponents based off Opta rating) that is far inferior to another stat that it’s based off (the actual average opta rating). Whoever runs opta ratings is smart enough to understand normal distribution and know that it’s inferior so I assume it’s not them.

The stat they should be using is literally right in front of them. They had to use the more accurate stat to get to the shitty one they used which says to me it was obviously manipulated or created by someone that doesn’t understand stats (which opta do). And manipulating stats is a pet peeve of mine so I apologize that this bothers me way more than it should.

You have become quite the tedious poster lately.

That’s fair but I could say you’ve been a tedious poster for years.

 

[todd1882]

I don’t think opta even created that graph. They may have created one like it that was edited by someone.

Oooo, conspiracy theories! In good faith I posted the graph AND the reddit thread from which it came...if you have a problem with it them then address either Opta or the OP in the thread...very simple.

The title doesn’t even line up with what it’s measuring.

It's not 'measuring' anything, per se...they are assigning a value (Opta power ranking) to each remaining team in teams' schedules. The subtitle says "using the average Opta power ranking of each teams remaining opponents to measure fixture difficulty". If you have 38 games against the same opponents, after X amount of games the average strength of each respective remaining schedule gives insight into the strength of those that came before i.e. the relative difficulties of respective teams' early schedules...or, "How difficult are each team's first ten games"?

How is this difficult for someone with the conceit to challenge someone else's intelligence, reading ability, integrity, etc etc? How is it difficult for someone that supposedly understands stats?

There are always people posting charts that don’t understand them.

You should actually learn how to read.

this is funnier now...

it’s also measuring a stat (the average ranking of opponents based off Opta rating) that is far inferior to another stat that it’s based off (the actual average opta rating). Whoever runs opta ratings is smart enough to understand normal distribution and know that it’s inferior so I assume it’s not them.

Again, there is not measuring going on. Unless you have proof it is not their graph then it's kind of pointless and self-serving to argue that it's not. You've got yourself tied up in mental knots, don't you? Feel free to verify with Opta or the OP in the reddit thread...I imagine you won't because you'd prefer to fling your feces around these parts instead of dispelling any real concern...

The stat they should be using is literally right in front of them. They had to use the more accurate stat to get to the shitty one they used which says to me it was obviously manipulated or created by someone that doesn’t understand stats (which opta do). And manipulating stats is a pet peeve of mine so I apologize that this bothers me way more than it should.

I don't give a fuck but if you do then why don't you take it up with Opta...which I have told you many times...to which you said it makes no sense to say such a thing...

That makes no sense.

See? It makes as much sense as the graph which you clearly misunderstand. You don't like it then make your own and explain/show your methodology...you choice.

That’s fair but I could say you’ve been a tedious poster for years.

...and yet here you are this weekend and now seeking me out to chance your arm and garner a few internet points...desperate for me to acknowledge you. You could have just availed yourself of the ignore button...as I will do right now.

 

[peter merison]

The newly promoted sides normally play really well at the start of the season and drop towards the middle and end. Liverpool shot themselves in the foot and we outplayed Man U and the filth ( second half) so I don think we have had an easy start but a few things went our way.. however we are creating lots of chances and we need someone to convert them or we will regret it.

 

[Deuterz]

Oooo, conspiracy theories! In good faith I posted the graph AND the reddit thread from which it came...if you have a problem with it them then address either Opta or the OP in the thread...very simple.

It's not 'measuring' anything, per se...they are assigning a value (Opta power ranking) to each remaining team in teams' schedules. The subtitle says "using the average Opta power ranking of each teams remaining opponents to measure fixture difficulty". If you have 38 games against the same opponents, after X amount of games the average strength of each respective remaining schedule gives insight into the strength of those that came before i.e. the relative difficulties of respective teams' early schedules...or, "How difficult are each team's first ten games"?

How is this difficult for someone with the conceit to challenge someone else's intelligence, reading ability, integrity, etc etc? How is it difficult for someone that supposedly understands stats?


this is funnier now...

Again, there is not measuring going on. Unless you have proof it is not their graph then it's kind of pointless and self-serving to argue that it's not. You've got yourself tied up in mental knots, don't you? Feel free to verify with Opta or the OP in the reddit thread...I imagine you won't because you'd prefer to fling your feces around these parts instead of dispelling any real concern...


I don't give a fuck but if you do then why don't you take it up with Opta...which I have told you many times...to which you said it makes no sense to say such a thing...

See? It makes as much sense as the graph which you clearly misunderstand. You don't like it then make your own and explain/show your methodology...you choice.

...and yet here you are this weekend and now seeking me out to chance your arm and garner a few internet points...desperate for me to acknowledge you. You could have just availed yourself of the ignore button...as I will do right now.

You are rustling so many jimmies with these basic facts.

 

[Spoony Yid]

We could probably have had a tougher start but you can only play the teams put in front of you.
Do I win £10 for least controversial observation and oldest cliche?

 

[bonaspur23]

Oooo, conspiracy theories! In good faith I posted the graph AND the reddit thread from which it came...if you have a problem with it them then address either Opta or the OP in the thread...very simple.

It's not 'measuring' anything, per se...they are assigning a value (Opta power ranking) to each remaining team in teams' schedules. The subtitle says "using the average Opta power ranking of each teams remaining opponents to measure fixture difficulty". If you have 38 games against the same opponents, after X amount of games the average strength of each respective remaining schedule gives insight into the strength of those that came before i.e. the relative difficulties of respective teams' early schedules...or, "How difficult are each team's first ten games"?

How is this difficult for someone with the conceit to challenge someone else's intelligence, reading ability, integrity, etc etc? How is it difficult for someone that supposedly understands stats?


this is funnier now...

Again, there is not measuring going on. Unless you have proof it is not their graph then it's kind of pointless and self-serving to argue that it's not. You've got yourself tied up in mental knots, don't you? Feel free to verify with Opta or the OP in the reddit thread...I imagine you won't because you'd prefer to fling your feces around these parts instead of dispelling any real concern...


I don't give a fuck but if you do then why don't you take it up with Opta...which I have told you many times...to which you said it makes no sense to say such a thing...

See? It makes as much sense as the graph which you clearly misunderstand. You don't like it then make your own and explain/show your methodology...you choice.

...and yet here you are this weekend and now seeking me out to chance your arm and garner a few internet points...desperate for me to acknowledge you. You could have just availed yourself of the ignore button...as I will do right now.

Which is the easier fixture list?

A)
City
Liverpool
Woolwich
Newcastle
Tottenham
Bournemouth
Luton
Burnley

B)
Villa
Chelsea
Wolves
Everton
Leicester
Forest
Fulham
Brentford
West ham

The way you are arguing for thinks A is easier (using average opponent ranking - higher is easier, is 50.9 for A and 44.4 for B)

Actual correct math (using average opta rating) says B is easier ( lower is easier - 89.0 for A and 86.6 for B) which is a massive difference and just about the difference between the hardest and easiest fixture lists so far this season.

It’s not a preference of which one you prefer. Using average opponent ranking instead of actual rating is just literally wrong if you understand what a normal distribution is.

The post of the graph on Reddit was made by a Liverpool fan.

 

[todd1882]

You are rustling so many jimmies with these basic facts.

Yeah, the info is not hard to understand but it seems I've kicked the cunts' nest of the same 'real fanz' that pop up in player threads, ENIC thread, etc etc, whenever criticism bubbles up.

As if it really matters whether or not our start is the easiest or not. If we win out then it didn't matter. If we hit a few hurdles after the break then perhaps things are working themselves out and we are just regressing to our mean.

Most important thing is it's been way more fun this season than the last 4.