Scientifically Judging a New Manager

[taricco]

I've seen a lot of differing opinions on our last few managers, the most contrasting being whether they should be sacked immediately vs giving them time. However, I often find these posts either frustratingly knee-jerk (the Manager Out threads after a defeat) or annoyingly vague - the 'give someone time' approach doesn't necessarily work if no improvements are happening at the club. How much time should you even give?

I think it might help if we try and put together something a little more scientific when it comes to judging new managers on their performance. I have tried to put together some actual expectations over 76 games (two premiership seasons), which focuses on team improvements/win percentages over time. I think this will help us judge managers better/work out how much time to actually give them. Feel free to add anything to this and I can edit!

The no. of games assumes the following: a) Premiership games only (I don't think cups should be included for judging a new manager) b) Game 1 should be at the start of a season, when the manager has had a full pre-season and made a few signings. If this isn't the case then an extra 3-5 games should be added to each category, as it will take longer for the manager to get their feet under the table c) to give you an idea of win percentages, Ramos was at 38.89%, Redknapp was 49.49%, AVB was 55%.

1. Games 1-5:
Minimum Win Percentage: 25%
Playing Style: Not Much Expected. A lot of team chopping and changing.
Notes: We should almost give the manager a free reign to do whatever they like during this period. Bar from an absolute disaster (e.g. 2 points from 8 games) the fans should just get behind the new manager and team.

2. Games 5-10
Minimum Win Percentage: 30%
Playing Style: Small elements of fluency creeping into the team during matches, leading to a few slightly better results.

3. Games 10-20
Minimum Win Percentage: 40%
Playing Style: Large periods of fluency during SOME games, leading to some all round good performances and good results.
Notes: Manager will still be playing around with systems and team line ups, so there will still be a number of dodgy performances and results during this period.

4. Games 20-30
Minimum Win Percentage: 43%
Playing Style: Large periods of fluency during HALF the games games, leading to more all round good performances and good results.

5. Games 30-38
Minimum Win Percentage: 46%
Playing Style: Most games now have periods of fluency, although some more than others. Results start to improve drastically and set us up for the new season.

6. Games 39-50
Minimum Win Percentage: 45%
Playing Style: Most games now have periods of fluency, although some more than others. Results start to improve drastically and set us up for the new season.
Notes: A few stutters due it being a new season should be expected/allowed for.

7. Games 50+
Minimum Win Percentage: 49%+
Playing Style: Playing style should be fully implemented, with 90% of games having a fluent playing style. Results should put us around 3-5 place in the table, depending on other team performances.
Notes: The manager has now had a full season and the beginning of a new one to get his feet under the table and start getting both performances and results.

There you have it. A simple (perhaps oversimplified?) way to judge a new manager in a fair and relatively scientific way, rather than knee-jerk reactions and vague promises of time allowance. Let me know your thoughts, and if you have time, where Poch ranks on this (he is now at phase 3). Thanks!

 

[Bobbins]

What's Poch's win percentage?

 

[taricco]

What's Poch's win percentage?

According to Wikipedia (the mother of all factually accurate stats), it's 54.17%. I think this includes cup games though, as it seems very high! In the league, he's won 6/15, so around 40%.

 

[Ribble]

The problem is that it doesn't take into account the human factor, which is pretty significant given the name of the game is to get 20-odd of them playing together as a cohesive whole.

 

[taricco]

The problem is that it doesn't take into account the human factor, which is pretty significant given the name of the game is to get 20-odd of them playing together as a cohesive whole.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by human factor? It gives the manager time to get the team playing fluently regardless of the style of management. It should work with both Nice Guys and Full on Dictators.

 

[Ribble]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by human factor? It gives the manager time to get the team playing fluently regardless of the style of management. It should work with both Nice Guys and Full on Dictators.

I mean the players. They've got 20+ people to manage, many of whom will have fairly decent sized egos due to the profession, and they have to build them into a team. With a squad so hastily put together as ours was really that isn't going to be a particularly simple job, especially after last season's upheaval and unrest.

I just don't think it's something you can apply a straightforward statistical approach to, and that it's more of a question for a psychologist to answer than a mathematician.

 

[taricco]

I mean the players. They've got 20+ people to manage, many of whom will have fairly decent sized egos due to the profession, and they have to build them into a team. With a squad so hastily put together as ours was really that isn't going to be a particularly simple job, especially after last season's upheaval and unrest.

I just don't think it's something you can apply a straightforward statistical approach to, and that it's more of a question for a psychologist to answer than a mathematician.

Good point, but surely that's part of management? As fans, we're not going to accept failure if the manager cannot control certain egos. The above takes this into consideration and allows the manager time to build up rapport with his players/get rid of any bad eggs (the above takes into account four transfer windows). I have also purposefully give a slow and steady build up, assuming that some players will be difficult for the new manager to deal with and may only be removed after a full season.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

A minimum win % of less than 1/3 is unacceptable. 1/3 is what you'd get in a completely random draw with three possible outcomes, (win, loose, draw). To perform worse than pure chance and dumb luck shouldn't be an acceptable minimum target. All though given Pochettino's loss %, worse than dumb luck is exactly what we are being served these days.

 

[Kendall]

In those periods mentioned, Sherwood never had a win % lower than 40% in the league it seems, which was a 5 game period that included Chelsea and Arsenal.


Games 1-5

PPG: 2.6
Win %: 80%
Loss %: 0%
GS: 11
GC: 4

Games 5-10

PPG: 2.0
Win %: 60%
Loss %: 20%
GS: 10
GC: 7

Games 10-15

PPG: 1.2
Win %: 40%
Loss %: 60%
GS: 4
GC: 8

Games 15-20

PPG: 2.0
Win %: 60%
Loss %: 20%
GS: 12
GC: 9

Games 20-22

PPG: 1.5
Win %: 50%
Loss% 20%
GS: 3
GC: 2

 

[Kendall]

I think we need to focus on league only, it is our bread and butter and allows for better comparability. Sherwood, as an example, didn't have the luxury of coaching us through the piss weak early rounds of the Europa League and both of his cup games were against Premier league opponents, not Forest and Brighton.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

In those periods mentioned, Sherwood never had a win % lower than 40% in the league it seems, which was a 5 game period that included Chelsea and Arsenal.


Games 1-5

Win %: 80%
GS: 11
GC: 4

Games 5-10

Win %: 60%
GS: 10
GC: 7

Games 10-15

Win %: 40%
GS: 4
GC: 8

Games 15-20

Win %: 60%
GS: 12
GC: 9

Games 20-22

Win %: 50%
GS: 3
GC: 2

Loss % should be considered too, as I alluded to in my previous post. Winning loads and loosing loads isn't a recipe for success.

 

[taricco]

Loss % should be considered too, as I alluded to in my previous post. Winning loads and loosing loads isn't a recipe for success.

This is a very interesting point! What do you reckon in terms of specifics?

 

[Kendall]

Loss % should be considered too, as I alluded to in my previous post. Winning loads and loosing loads isn't a recipe for success.

Edited.

Sherwood oversaw a a loss % over 5 games of 60% in the period in which we were beaten by Norwich, Chelsea and Arsenal. Other than that, we only lost 1 game in each of the other periods, apart from his first, where we lost none.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

This is a very interesting point! What do you reckon in terms of specifics?

Another point is that a win % of 25 for the first 5 matches is impossible. You'll either obtain 0, 20 or 40 % (60, 80, 100%)....

As far as loss % goes, maybe 25-30 % as an overall max? For instance Arsenal is 6th and we 10th with the same win %, but Arsenal profits from better loss %. (27% vs 40%). Last season Everton finished above Spurs with the same win %, but better loss % (21 %).

 

[Honest John]

Isn't points per game a better way to judge as it takes into account wins and losses? Ultimately the point of a league is to amass the most points.

No idea how our last 4 managers compare though.

 

[Kendall]

Isn't points per game a better way to judge as it takes into account wins and losses? Ultimately the point of a league is to amass the most points.

No idea how our last 4 managers compare though.

Periodic PPGs updated for Sherwood.

 

[Nocando]

Based on this theory @taricco can you post a scatter plot with time series for the last few managers? Would be interesting to see how well this theory works for each of the managers and whether the 2 season 'cut off' is the right benchmark to use in terms of time / success.

 

[Ribble]

Good point, but surely that's part of management? As fans, we're not going to accept failure if the manager cannot control certain egos. The above takes this into consideration and allows the manager time to build up rapport with his players/get rid of any bad eggs (the above takes into account four transfer windows). I have also purposefully give a slow and steady build up, assuming that some players will be difficult for the new manager to deal with and may only be removed after a full season.

That's not entirely reliant upon the manager though, you're bringing in the roles of scouts, the DoF (if there is one), the chairman, agents and the rest of the backroom staff if you're looking at team building over that long of a period.

Also I think that you need to take into account the previous style the team played, and how much of a change the manager is implementing. For example I think that changing from route 1 counterattacking football to controlled possession is going to take much longer, as you'll have to change the mentality and attitude of the entire team as well as ensuring that they're as comfortable with the ball at their feet as they need to be.

 

[nightgoat]

Edited.

Sherwood oversaw a a loss % over 5 games of 60% in the period in which we were beaten by Norwich, Chelsea and Arsenal. Other than that, we only lost 1 game in each of the other periods, apart from his first, where we lost none.

Tim had a loss percentage of 27% in the league, 36% overall. League Win/Draw/Loss percentages of 59/14/27, overall 50/14/36. I would imagine an overall loss percentage of 36 is pretty high up in our managerial history.

 

[Kendall]

Tim had a loss percentage of 27% in the league, 36% overall. League Win/Draw/Loss percentages of 59/14/27, overall 50/14/36. I would imagine an overall loss percentage of 36 is pretty high up in our managerial history.

Quite possibly, but like I say, Tim didn't have the benefit of playing scrubs in the Europa League or early cup matches against non-PL opposition.

I reckon a PL loss percentage of 27% is amongst the lowest of our PL managers. A 36% loss ratio, do you reckon many have beaten that?