11.51, which is very strong evidence to reject our null hypothesis.
In part 2, we got:
A sample of 167 with an average of 0.94 before and 1.27 after. The differences over these 167 cases had a st. dev. of .6298, which gives us a t-statistic of approx. 6.77, which again is very strong evidence ...
In part 2, we got:
A sample of 167 with an average of 0.94 before and 1.27 after. The differences over these 167 cases had a st. dev. of .6298, which gives us a t-statistic of approx. 6.77, which again is very strong evidence ...
Comments
Then, for the individual categories, we perform z-tests with the variance of the population (managers that stayed) to the sample (new hires). I will not bore you with all the variances and such. But in PART 1, we got z-scores of:
0.5-0.99: 1.900
1-1.49: 1.592
PART 2:
0.0-0.49: <0
0.5-0.99: 2.08
1-1.49: 3.06
For 0.05 significance level, we get z-score of 1.645. In this case, in part 1 we fail to reject the first and third category (but barely for the third) and reject the second category, and in part 2 ...
Now that all the statistical mumbo-jumbo is out of the way, let's get to the conclusion.
There is very strong statistical evidence to suggest that the 'new-manager bounce' is a very real thing in the premier league. On average, managers score almost 0.54 PPM more in their first five then in the five games before their arrival, and 0.34PPM more in their first five then
This statistical evidence is mostly found in managers who get hired after their team has scored between 0.5-1.49 PPM, both during the season and in the last five. For teams that score less, it does not seem to matter too much.
As always, if you've come this far, please like and reposts! These things take a lot of time, and I am trying to get this ...