Unai Emery: Adios

[Dj_sds -]

I'm not the one criticising hm..

I know, it was an addition to your post

 

[Fallout]

an interesting question that i'm reading in this thread is: how do you evaluate a manager's performance? i think it would be interesting if someone were to run a small regression model to predict our points total. any deviation from the predicted total would represent the manager's impact.

for example, if i'm thinking about variables that impact our league position aside from the manager, they would as follows: (1) where we finished last season, (2) how valuable our squad is relative to the league, (3) how many injuries we had. the deviation between our predicted finish using those variables and our actual finish would be attributed to the manager.

model:
Y = points / available points
X1 = points last season / available points
X2 = team squad cost / league squad cost
X3 = days lost to injury / squad size
e = error term (i.e. manager's impact)

i've seen all of this data in one form or another on the internet, and it's usually available for the 20 teams that were in the premier league each season. the question is whether there are any Econ students or PhDs who are browsing these forums, have some spare time, and are also interested in this exercise. probably not.

 

[samshere]

an interesting question that i'm reading in this thread is: how do you evaluate a manager's performance? i think it would be interesting if someone were to run a small regression model to predict our points total. any deviation from the predicted total would represent the manager's impact.

for example, if i'm thinking about variables that impact our league position aside from the manager, they would as follows: (1) where we finished last season, (2) how valuable our squad is relative to the league, (3) how many injuries we had. the deviation between our predicted finish using those variables and our actual finish would be attributed to the manager.

model:
Y = points / available points
X1 = points last season / available points
X2 = team squad cost / league squad cost
X3 = days lost to injury / squad size
e = error term (i.e. manager's impact)

i've seen all of this data in one form or another on the internet, and it's usually available for the 20 teams that were in the premier league each season. the question is whether there are any Econ students or PhDs who are browsing these forums, have some spare time, and are also interested in this exercise. probably not.

You do it. Here's a dataset:https://www.kaggle.com/limmen/premierleague-league-tables-188889-201617

 

[Makingtrax]

an interesting question that i'm reading in this thread is: how do you evaluate a manager's performance? i think it would be interesting if someone were to run a small regression model to predict our points total. any deviation from the predicted total would represent the manager's impact.

for example, if i'm thinking about variables that impact our league position aside from the manager, they would as follows: (1) where we finished last season, (2) how valuable our squad is relative to the league, (3) how many injuries we had. the deviation between our predicted finish using those variables and our actual finish would be attributed to the manager.

model:
Y = points / available points
X1 = points last season / available points
X2 = team squad cost / league squad cost
X3 = days lost to injury / squad size
e = error term (i.e. manager's impact)

i've seen all of this data in one form or another on the internet, and it's usually available for the 20 teams that were in the premier league each season. the question is whether there are any Econ students or PhDs who are browsing these forums, have some spare time, and are also interested in this exercise. probably not.

Is it worth it? If you assume that other variables are much less significant than squad cost then you can make a very simple measure of how well a manager is doing relative to his squad cost position.

So Pep should be 1st, Mourinho 2nd, Klopp 3rd, Sarri 4th, Emery 5th, Poch 6th, Silva 7th, Puel 8th etc.

We can see that per £ of investment Emery is bang on, whilst Mourinho is a waste of money.

 

[Beksl]

Is it worth it? If you assume that other variables are much less significant than squad cost then you can make a very simple measure of how well a manager is doing relative to his squad cost position.

Why would someone make that assumption unless they're driven by an ulterior motive?

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

Is it worth it? If you assume that other variables are much less significant than squad cost then you can make a very simple measure of how well a manager is doing relative to his squad cost position.

So Pep should be 1st, Mourinho 2nd, Klopp 3rd, Sarri 4th, Emery 5th, Poch 6th, Silva 7th, Puel 8th etc.

We can see that per £ of investment Emery is bang on, whilst Mourinho is a waste of money.

In configuration interaction the double excited states account for 80-90% of the correlation energy. If you want the exact solution you need to include the triple, fourth and go for the Full CI!

 

[Rouski]

Of course but going the other way and saying he hasn't been good at all is a blatant lie.

Who said he hasn't been good?

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

an interesting question that i'm reading in this thread is: how do you evaluate a manager's performance? i think it would be interesting if someone were to run a small regression model to predict our points total. any deviation from the predicted total would represent the manager's impact.

for example, if i'm thinking about variables that impact our league position aside from the manager, they would as follows: (1) where we finished last season, (2) how valuable our squad is relative to the league, (3) how many injuries we had. the deviation between our predicted finish using those variables and our actual finish would be attributed to the manager.

model:
Y = points / available points
X1 = points last season / available points
X2 = team squad cost / league squad cost
X3 = days lost to injury / squad size
e = error term (i.e. manager's impact)

i've seen all of this data in one form or another on the internet, and it's usually available for the 20 teams that were in the premier league each season. the question is whether there are any Econ students or PhDs who are browsing these forums, have some spare time, and are also interested in this exercise. probably not.

I might have time next week. I already have my linear regression code in the CPU since the last time. It is quite pointless though, this forum has zero understanding on statistics and probabilities.

 

[Rouski]

These stats are lovely and all but they fail to mention the fact that the current manager has never faced this league while the previous one had 20 years experience in it..

I did not know how long the manager is in the league is the barometer we are using for how well we are doing.

 

[Makingtrax]

In configuration interaction the double excited states account for 80-90% of the correlation energy. If you want the exact solution you need to include the triple, fourth and go for the Full CI!

Yes but there are two main approaches. In the first of these, perturbation theory, a solution is developed in terms of the exact eigenfunctions that belong to an approximate Hamiltonian. In the second approach, the variational method, trial functions are treated as approximate eigenfunctions of the exact Hamiltonian.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

Yes but there are two main approaches. In the first of these, perturbation theory, a solution is developed in terms of the exact eigenfunctions that belong to an approximate Hamiltonian. In the second approach, the variational method, trial functions are treated as approximate eigenfunctions of the exact Hamiltonian.

There are three main post Hartree-Fock methods to approximate the energy correlation which arise because of mean-field theory of Hartree-Fock, configuration interaction which is not size-consistent, Many body perturbation theory and coupled cluster theory which is size-consistent. The second and third order perturbation in Many body perturbation theory and double excited determinants in CI and CC are in agreement that 80-90% to the correlation energy is due to double excitations.

Which bring me to my point, even if one variable is more significant than other variables its not wrong to investigate the other variables and how they affect the outcome. Remember Hartree-Fock covers 99% of the energy of molecules, but 1% is very important to describe chemical phenomena like bonds!

 

[Toby]

No that's fair. I have criticism as well. We are losing our momentum and we're not as sleak as we were a few weeks ago.
He's certainly made some mistakes but I still feel we're so much better off than we were last season. Under Wenger in his last years it felt like a sinking ship. It doesn;t feel that way anymore.

Mate, we're much more on the same page than the discussion let on, I suppose. Using your analogy, yes the last Wenger years felt like a sinking ship - and now we're on a refitted ship, more tailored to the seas the club is faring. We both feel the ship isn't sinking anymore but well afloat. The difference is: You feel we're sailing towards a golden sunset, I think we're still in somewhat troubled waters. Let's see what shores we'll arrive at.

 

[Makingtrax]

Why would someone make that assumption unless they're driven by an ulterior motive?

I read Fever Pitch and after mentioning that I enjoyed it I got 3 football books for Xmas.

Soccernomics, The Numbers Game and Inverting the Pyramid. They turned me into a squad cost freak, like a born again Christian after reading the bible.

 

[Makingtrax]

Mate, we're much more on the same page than the discussion let on, I suppose. Using your analogy, yes the last Wenger years felt like a sinking ship - and now we're on a refitted ship, more tailored to the seas the club is faring. We both feel the ship isn't sinking anymore but well afloat. The difference is: You feel we're sailing towards a golden sunset, I think we're still in somewhat troubled waters. Let's see what shores we'll arrive at.

But while Pep had been given diesel engines by Mansour, Wenger was racing him with oars provided by a Kroenke. It just looked like his ship was sinking in comparison.

 

[Makingtrax]

There are three main post Hartree-Fock methods to approximate the energy correlation which arise because of mean-field theory of Hartree-Fock, configuration interaction which is not size-consistent, Many body perturbation theory and coupled cluster theory which is size-consistent. The second and third order perturbation in Many body perturbation theory and double excited determinants in CI and CC are in agreement that 80-90% to the correlation energy is due to double excitations.

Which bring me to my point, even if one variable is more significant than other variables its not wrong to investigate the other variables and how they affect the outcome. Remember Hartree-Fock covers 99% of the energy of molecules, but 1% is very important to describe chemical phenomena like bonds!

As Emery would say all roads lead to Schrodinger.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

As Emery would say all roads lead to Schrodinger.

You dont walk back. You keep searching for the exact solution.

 

[Toby]

But while Pep had been given diesel engines by Mansour, Wenger was racing him with oars provided by a Kroenke. It just looked like his ship was sinking in comparison.

Can't say anything but: I agree. But then I never wanted Wenger gone per se, I always maintained a DoF and more trageted spending would have done the trick for him. Only if the club couldn't have that, Arsenal needed a new manager to bring in new blood. Before all the change, or maybe just after, I said I'd actually wanted to see how Wenger would fare under the Mislintat/Sanllehi leadership.

 

[BigPoppaPump]

But while Pep had been given diesel engines by Mansour, Wenger was racing him with oars provided by a Kroenke. It just looked like his ship was sinking in comparison.

I really can't believe you're still arguing squad cost. It's the equivalent of saying a car is faster than a pedal bike or that vegetables are healthier than junk food.

 

[Mark Tobias]

Mate, we're much more on the same page than the discussion let on, I suppose. Using your analogy, yes the last Wenger years felt like a sinking ship - and now we're on a refitted ship, more tailored to the seas the club is faring. We both feel the ship isn't sinking anymore but well afloat. The difference is: You feel we're sailing towards a golden sunset, I think we're still in somewhat troubled waters. Let's see what shores we'll arrive at.

Great analaogy. I'm not sure about a golden sunset yet, I just feel the troubled waters are almost behind us. Having said that I hear your points. We're certainly a work in progress.
Apologies for being rash or unfriendly in my responses though. Year is getting long.

 

[Mark Tobias]

I really can't believe you're still arguing squad cost. It's the equivalent of saying a car is faster than a pedal bike or that vegetables are healthier than junk food.

Great analogy. @Makingtrax please use this one further. Man City is a Lamborghini, Arsenal are a Merc SLG and Tottenham are a pedal bike (Who happen to have a great cyclist getting results)