If you are going to persist with this nonsense, then you have to consider both sides of the coin. By drawing, we are taking points out of the overall sum of the leagues points total. If we draw 16 games we withdraw points from the pot of other specific teams on a maximum of two occasions. We deprive ourselves SIXTEEN WHOLE TIMES!
Definitely better to win more games, which you should be doing if your budget is four or five times larger.
If you look at my post in its entirety rather than cherrypicking it, you'll notice that I am not using points surrendered as a standalone metric - in isolation it's not that useful.
I would be interested in you demonstrating that our budget is "four or five times larger". Larger than whose?
Because every league table I've ever seen is just based on how many points you win.
That's not correct. That's like saying that looking at your bank balance is a good way of measuring how wealthy you are. The actual number itself is relatively meaningless; what matters is how it compares to the other numbers. The points total required to get automatic promotion, to make it into the playoffs or to avoid relegation varies every year, so it's something of an over-simplification to think that it's just about how many points your team accumulates; the amount accumulated by others is hugely relevant as well. And as I said in my original post, it isn't a zero sum game so we can't assume that points not collected by us are points that get attributed to another team. Three draws are a loss of six points to us, but a gain of only three to the opposition. That has a value.
When Karanka and Warburton have similar records on "How may points have they won" it seems a little self-serving to say "Well, actually, this simple new statistical method I've just thought up is a much better metric."
It isn't new at all. People have talked about "six pointers" since before my time watching football; it's a concept that tends to get introduced later on in the season when the performance of other teams is in slightly clearer focus than at the beginning, but in fact preventing the other team from accumulating points has exactly the same statistical and numerical effect on opening day as it does in March.
Probably not, but I don't know...my gut feeling is that he'll want to see us in the playoffs. Any distance off that will influence his thinking. An away run of Villa, d*rby, Norwich, and a home run of teams that wont be playing an open game, could conceivably leave us outside of the playoffs after xmas. If we were say 9th, or 10th, and five points off the playoffs would you be confident the manager gets to stay?
The next four games are against Hull, Villa, Preston and Ipswich. Villa away will be a tough fixture as they look to be getting their sh!t together under the new management team, but the other three teams are all in the bottom seven. 8 points from the next 12 looks to be achievable, and if we could put a run like that together it should see us firmly cemented in the top six.
The Christmas run looks like a bitch though. In the space of 15 days we have d*rby away, QPR at home, Norwich away, Millwall away, Leeds at home. Millwall are the only one of those teams not in the top ten and they have an irritating habit of pulling out performances. That run will sort the men from the boys.
I'm sorry that conjecture and fear apparently override actual facts for you. Maybe we should pull up Warburton's stats at his current club to see how they've improved? Development abilities such as you describe must be of use to many clubs not blessed with a billionaire shipping magnate.
By every quantifiable measure we are a much better team now than we were under Warburton, and getting better. I think there's next to no chance that Karanka is fired this season.
Warburton did well. Better than Kranky in the reverse fixtures. For less money.
I think that that that is an interesting and arguable point worthy of some numbers.
Warburton was in charge for 37 games, with a record of W15 D3 L19 and scoring a total of 43.24% of the available points.
Karanka has been in charge for 42 games, with a record of W13 D16 L13 and scoring a total of 43.65% of the available points.
I think there's a superficial argument therefore that Warburton was more successful than Karanka if we use as our determination the value achieved from the money spent. However, I have searched the records and not yet been able to find any instance of a team being promoted because of how well they did relative to the amount of money spent, so we're going to have to go with more traditional measures of success, such as league position.
When Warburton took over we were 20th in the Championship; when he was fired, we were 14th. Karanka took over with us in 14th still, and today we are 7th. It seems perhaps curious that our current manager at first glance isn't doing any better than the last one, and yet we are higher in the table. I think we can put that down to two things:
1) This season Karanka's team has taken 27/51 available points, which is 52.9%. That's a big improvement on his Forest career average, and means therefore we have taken a huge leap forward as a team. Karanka achieved less with Warburton's players than Warburton was, but we know now that it was very much the start of an exercise in transforming the squad. (As an aside, it's also interesting to note that the biggest knock on him, the signing of older players, has gone a bit quiet with the performances of Dawson and Guedioura this season.)
2) Karanka gets a lot more draws than Warburton did, and the league is not a zero sum game because of the weighting put on wins. The wins that other teams were getting against us last season were giving them a 3 point advantage on us, and virtually no one is getting that from us this year. Put another way - while their points gained percentages were very similar, their points given away differ dramatically. While Karanka's is a pleasingly symmetrical 55 points given to the opposition, which is still 43.65% of the points that opposing teams could have taken from us, Warburton gave away 60 points which leaps his points surrendered percentage to 54.1%, almost 11% more than we took. If we look at Karanka this season, the opposition have taken 15 points in total from games against us out of a possible 51 - just 29.4%.
I would therefore put it to you that Karanka's 52.9% gained vs 29.4% surrendered is a vast improvement upon Warburton's 43.65% vs 54.1%. We've gone from a manager who was delivering an 11% net loss of points, to one who is delivering a net gain of over 20%.
Edit: Just to compound this, I ran the numbers for Warburton solely on the season he was fired - it was broadly his team by that point, financial limitations notwithstanding. By the day he was sacked he had taken 41.03% of the available points (32/78) and surrendered 53.85% (42/78), so in fact he had a worse points differential that season than in his total time at Forest - he was actually getting worse.
My pets have mostly followed a couple of themes for their names: we have had a Stanley and an Alfie (sadly my wife has been resistant every time to naming any of our pets Stuart or Psycho), and we have also had a Stella, a Charlie and now a Woodford.