| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded on 21 April 18:15 - Apr 12 with 6867 views | Davillin |
Please read this first. Thanks.
“Mathematical Safety” is based on an assumption that if the Swans get no more points from their remaining games, and any other team win every one of their remaining games, the Swans will still end up with more points than that other team at the end of the season. When the Swans reach that position on this chart for three other teams, the Swans are mathematically safe.
[I’m aware that the teams on this chart cannot all win out. It’s not a “final table,” but a chart to show what we need to do to avoid relegation.]
How to read the chart.
“Points” means each team’s present total points.
For the Swans, “Projected” means their points total at the end of the season assuming zero more points gained. For all of the other teams, “Projected” means their final points total assuming they win all of their remaining games.
“Needed” means the number of additional points the Swans need to finish higher than each of the other teams. NOTE WELL: The number “needed” is any combination of Swans winning points and the opponent’s dropping points.
The “needed” number assumes the Swans will continue to have a better goal difference.
p.s. No team on this chart is mathematically safe yet.
I will keep this updated as games are played. I have added a column for goal differences.
In simplified form, look at the "needed" column. This is a "worst case" scenario. We must make up the number shown for each team - either by our getting points, or by that team dropping points, or by a combination of both. For example, on today's chart, to be safe, we need to get 2 more points than either Norwich or Sunderland, and we'll nip them by goal difference.
 [Post edited 26 Apr 2014 18:32]
|  |
| |  |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded before Chelsea Home on 18:16 - Apr 12 with 5513 views | Jackfath |
Whats your hunch Dav? Will we be safe? |  |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded before Chelsea Home on 18:45 - Apr 12 with 5420 views | latchford |
So if everyone else wins all their games we need ten? |  | | |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded before Chelsea Home on 18:51 - Apr 12 with 5396 views | union_jack |
Has Dav factored in bottom teams playing eachother? |  |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded before Chelsea Home on 18:57 - Apr 12 with 5380 views | Davillin |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded before Chelsea Home on 18:51 - Apr 12 by union_jack |
Has Dav factored in bottom teams playing eachother? |
Thanks for the question, union_jack.
Respectfully, note that in the original post, I point out that projections for all of the other teams assume they will win all games because the object is to examine the Swans projected points with zero more points against a single opponent with all remaining points.
It's not a "table."
However, although it is fair and accurate to say that when two of the opponents on that chart play each other, they cannot both get all three points, what that will mean in fact is that the team that loses against one of the other opponents will be three points closer to us overtaking them. | |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded before Chelsea Home on 19:24 - Apr 12 with 5287 views | ApeShit |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded before Chelsea Home on 18:51 - Apr 12 by union_jack |
Has Dav factored in bottom teams playing eachother? |
And that is why it is pointless and makes no sense. |  | | |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded before Chelsea Home on 23:45 - Apr 12 with 5096 views | Davillin |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded before Chelsea Home on 19:24 - Apr 12 by ApeShit |
And that is why it is pointless and makes no sense. |
If it makes no sense to you, that's your fault, you know.
Question: does it make people appear clever when they simply post nothing if they don't understand the subject? | |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded before Chelsea Home on 03:33 - Apr 13 with 5008 views | GixerJack |
I've got a headache now!!! Probably a combination of reading this and Strongbow!!! |  | | |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded AFTER Chelsea Home on 19:09 - Apr 13 with 4792 views | Davillin |
I have updated this chart after the Chelsea Home game. The significant change is in Swansea's number of points still available. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 02:12 - Apr 17 with 4569 views | Davillin |
I have updated and uploaded this information as of the Table on 17 April 2014. | |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 02:15 - Apr 17 with 4566 views | Phil_S |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 02:12 - Apr 17 by Davillin |
I have updated and uploaded this information as of the Table on 17 April 2014. |
Crystal Palace have 40 points, Sunderland have 26? |  | | |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 15:27 - Apr 17 with 4323 views | Davillin |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 02:15 - Apr 17 by Phil_S |
Crystal Palace have 40 points, Sunderland have 26? |
That's what the BBC website and my database tell me. Are they wrong? | |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 16:37 - Apr 17 with 4249 views | ApeShit |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 15:27 - Apr 17 by Davillin |
That's what the BBC website and my database tell me. Are they wrong? |
The BBC website is correct, your database is wrong. | | | |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 17:06 - Apr 17 with 4189 views | _ |
Hee hee
FAIL |  |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 01:27 - Apr 18 with 4065 views | Davillin |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 16:37 - Apr 17 by ApeShit |
The BBC website is correct, your database is wrong. |
With my sincere apology, I have corrected the graph.
Thank you to those of you who read more carefully than I did and had the courtesy to let me know. | |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 03:07 - Apr 18 with 4041 views | JethroJack |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 01:27 - Apr 18 by Davillin |
With my sincere apology, I have corrected the graph.
Thank you to those of you who read more carefully than I did and had the courtesy to let me know. |
Its STILL wrong....we've played 34 not 33...or have I missed something? |  | | |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 09:42 - Apr 18 with 3929 views | WxmJax |
Just a point, we don't need 8 points more than Cardiff, we just need 8 more points for Cardiff not to catch us. |  |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 14:29 - Apr 18 with 3852 views | Davillin |
| Mathematical Safety - uploaded as of Table on 17 April on 09:42 - Apr 18 by WxmJax |
Just a point, we don't need 8 points more than Cardiff, we just need 8 more points for Cardiff not to catch us. |
Actually, neither is correct.
We meed 8 points from a combination of points we win, plus points they drop.
Note Well: It's even more clearly stated in the original post. “Needed” means the number of additional points the Swans need to finish higher than each of the other teams. NOTE WELL: The number “needed” is any combination of Swans winning points and the opponent’s dropping points." [Post edited 18 Apr 2014 14:32]
| |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded after Newcastle Away on 18:15 - Apr 19 with 3692 views | Davillin |
Updated and uploaded after Newcastle Away. | |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded on 20 April on 17:52 - Apr 20 with 3482 views | Davillin |
Updated and uploaded after games played on 20 April. | |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded on 20 April on 17:54 - Apr 20 with 3474 views | Phil_S |
Sunderland have 29 points | | | |
| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded on 20 April on 18:09 - Apr 20 with 3414 views | Davillin |
| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded on 20 April on 17:54 - Apr 20 by Phil_S |
Sunderland have 29 points |
What I'd like to know is where in heck were you when the sins I was committing then were tickets to Hell?
Thanks for these corrections, anyway. | |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded on 20 April on 22:44 - Apr 20 with 3117 views | ScoobyWho |
I don't understand any of this. |  |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded on 20 April on 02:00 - Apr 21 with 3029 views | Glyn1 |
| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded on 20 April on 22:44 - Apr 20 by ScoobyWho |
I don't understand any of this. |
ScoobyWho: For one thing, it means that if Fulham and Cardiff each lose just one more game, then they can't finish above us in the table even if we lose all of our remaining matches (taking our goal difference into account). (Dav's 3 point swing).
Norwich need a win and 2 draws from their last 3 matches, or 2 wins and a loss, if we again assume that we lose all of our last 3 matches (Dav's 5 point swing).
And of course any point that we get makes it even tougher for all of them,
[Post edited 21 Apr 2014 2:08]
|  |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded on 20 April on 04:13 - Apr 21 with 2988 views | swanny |
can we have a swingometer? |  |
| 'Sorry, your password must contain a capital letter, two numbers, a symbol, an inspiring message, a spell, a gang sign, a hieroglyph and the blood of a virgin" |
| |
| Mathematical Safety - updated and uploaded on 20 April on 08:24 - Apr 21 with 2939 views | thejack |
Crystal Palace and Stoke need deleting from the chart as they are mathematically safe. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
