Knicked off statto on Wednesday Ways, average position of teams left to play

 

Edited February 13, 20233 yr by green genie

29 minutes ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Subjective, quasi-scientific bullshit. If the apparatchiks get hold of this they'll be awarding 0.73 of a goal next.

If it goes in the net, offside/folks not withstanding, it's a goal. If it doesn't it's not.

Even more precisely; if the ref says it’s a goal, that’s it. Unless it’s the Prem, or various cup matches.

1 hour ago, desperado said:

😂

Sure you were delighted to receive that insight.

Pretty sure I’ve heard Evatt quote expected goals more than once. Like you I’m no expert, but there’s too many professionals use it for it not to be considered useful when looking at data to analyse performance.

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Subjective, quasi-scientific bullshit. If the apparatchiks get hold of this they'll be awarding 0.73 of a goal next.

If it goes in the net, offside/folks not withstanding, it's a goal. If it doesn't it's not.

So Evatt, whose livliehood and professional success depends on his team's results and performances seems to think XG analysis is a useful addition to his toolkit as a manager based on him referencing it several times in interviews. 

Dr Feelgood however, who posts on a football forum, reckons XG is a load of old shite and uses language associated with totalitarian Communism in order to undermine it. 

🤔

Edited February 16, 20233 yr by RoadRunnerFan

No doubt it has its value, though I'm sure it's about the interpretation as much as the data on its own.

Look at the first game: a 3-0 win. The xG however wouldn't necessarily reflect this, unless it is far more subtle and as I said, needs genuine understanding and interpretation skills.

Leave the data chaps with it, if it works then great. I'm sure the coaching staff will also use other information and their own skills too.

 

 

41 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

No doubt it has its value, though I'm sure it's about the interpretation as much as the data on its own.

Look at the first game: a 3-0 win. The xG however wouldn't necessarily reflect this, unless it is far more subtle and as I said, needs genuine understanding and interpretation skills.

Leave the data chaps with it, if it works then great. I'm sure the coaching staff will also use other information and their own skills too.

 

 

I think it's value is in that trends often in the long term will revert to the mean -  ie the old  'if we keep creating good chances we'll start putting them away' so it's use is more strategic than game by game eg 'are we doing the right things?' Or 'Where do we need to strengthen?'

The first game was one apiece Ipswich away, but your point still stands on the standalone data from that game. I don't think game by game it's that useful though - more about identifying trends. 

Can't be arsed looking but would be interested to know what game 13 and 14 were - looks a real turning point after game 13.

Aye, agree.

2 hours ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

I think it's value is in that trends often in the long term will revert to the mean -  ie the old  'if we keep creating good chances we'll start putting them away' so it's use is more strategic than game by game eg 'are we doing the right things?' Or 'Where do we need to strengthen?'

The first game was one apiece Ipswich away, but your point still stands on the standalone data from that game. I don't think game by game it's that useful though - more about identifying trends. 

Can't be arsed looking but would be interested to know what game 13 and 14 were - looks a real turning point after game 13.

13 was Barnsley 0-0 at home, 14 was Accy away and the 0-2 to 3-2 comeback.

Was enjoying reading this thread a couple of days ago .. 

Seems to have morphed into one of those 1970s BBC2 Open University  Pure and Applied Maths courses that used to be on the telly when nothing else was 

 

Edited February 16, 20233 yr by Benny The Ball

49 minutes ago, Traf said:

13 was Barnsley 0-0 at home, 14 was Accy away and the 0-2 to 3-2 comeback.

if im reading it right, its a 3 game average

id like to see it by game

3 hours ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

... the old  'if we keep creating good chances we'll start putting them away'.

Amazing. It's value is clear then. It's a shame people couldn't see that without all this mumbo-jumbo.

The 'No Shit Sherlock Award Goes to ...'.

8 minutes ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Amazing. It's value is clear then. It's a shame people couldn't see that without all this mumbo-jumbo.

The 'No Shit Sherlock Award Goes to ...'.

Okay Moriarty.

I'll stick to if it's good enough for Evatt it's good enough for me. 

You stick to your mistrust of 'mumbo jumbo'

Other benchmarking is available; Table Tennis Skillz, Top Bantz and Pashun to name just three. 

 

Edited February 16, 20233 yr by RoadRunnerFan

51 minutes ago, Casino said:

if im reading it right, its a 3 game average

id like to see it by game

Seems like Cheltenham away was our nadir and after that we've steadily improved in terms of creating chances (blue line).

We've been defensively sound all season, but since Oxford at home we've been fairly successful in restricting opponents to ~1.0 xG at most (red line).

2 hours ago, Traf said:

13 was Barnsley 0-0 at home, 14 was Accy away and the 0-2 to 3-2 comeback.

Right, so those red and blue lines are based on past games. How the hell are we talking about EXPECTED goals from games we already have the result for? 

29 minutes ago, MickyD said:

Right, so those red and blue lines are based on past games. How the hell are we talking about EXPECTED goals from games we already have the result for? 

You only know xG after the game.

You misunderstand what xG means then.

A tool to help assess how well a team is creating and finishing goal scoring opportunities. 

If it shows the efficiency/effectiveness of the play it may help identify which combination of players worms, where there is room for improvement etc etc.

Deeper than that, the analysts etc will have more knowledge, but simply it's just another analytical technique. I'm no great fan of it being traipsed out on motd etc, as it doesn't say a great deal to those of us that aren't that deep into the coaching side etc, but it must have it's uses nevertheless. 

It’s even bigger bollocks then. So every time a striker goes one-on-one with the keeper but doesn’t score his xG goes down, even if he’d previously scored a hat trick?

4 minutes ago, MickyD said:

It’s even bigger bollocks then. So every time a striker goes one-on-one with the keeper but doesn’t score his xG goes down, even if he’d previously scored a hat trick?

Averages Micky. Averages.

2 hours ago, bromers said:

Seems like Cheltenham away was our nadir and after that we've steadily improved in terms of creating chances (blue line).

We've been defensively sound all season, but since Oxford at home we've been fairly successful in restricting opponents to ~1.0 xG at most (red line).

If you did that, thanks

 

Boo! Poor finishing let Fleetwood do their job on us

On 16/02/2023 at 20:41, MickyD said:

It’s even bigger bollocks then. So every time a striker goes one-on-one with the keeper but doesn’t score his xG goes down, even if he’d previously scored a hat trick?

Thats not the way it works. It is used to assess How likely a chance is to be scored between 0 and 1. Every shot a player has is given a score and added up and that's his XG. Every shot the team has is added up and that's the teams XG. 

so the team might end up with an expected goals of 3.7 but actually score 2, hence wasteful.

On a per game basis I don't think it's that helpful, but when you look over a season it is, especially for players . If a striker has an expected goals figure for  the season of 18 but he's scored 27 , then hes a better than average finisher etc. 

Would this be a good time to bring up xGI?

I bet our xGC is tiny, btw.

11 hours ago, Arrested development said:

Thats not the way it works. It is used to assess How likely a chance is to be scored between 0 and 1. Every shot a player has is given a score and added up and that's his XG. Every shot the team has is added up and that's the teams XG. 

so the team might end up with an expected goals of 3.7 but actually score 2, hence wasteful.

On a per game basis I don't think it's that helpful, but when you look over a season it is, especially for players . If a striker has an expected goals figure for  the season of 18 but he's scored 27 , then hes a better than average finisher etc. 

It's for this reason it's not a statistic

17 hours ago, Marc505 said:

I bet our xGC is tiny, btw.

What's the Xr2?

 

11 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

What's the Xr2?

 

Thats what we had stolen off the car park up Anglezarke once early 90s on a family day out. Told my parents I thought I could hear an alarm like ours going off while we were walking and they told me to shut up and stop being daft.

Police found it up Deane Road a few days later stripped out and covered in takeaway boxes. Someone had stuck an "I love my XR2" sticker in the back window too!

Anyway.

On 19/02/2023 at 09:43, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

It's for this reason it's not a statistic

That value is derived from people who have watched thousands and thousands of games to work out how often a player scores from every position in the final third. So it's for this reason that it is a statistic, and reasonably accurate. From a scouting perspective , it's a good starting point if a player is outperforming his XG