ap04

Nice to see you care more about others' claims and suspicions than what courts of law decide. And then use "alleged" to chicken out of passing it as your own opinion due to fear of libel and lack of proof.
I presume if someone takes you to court and you are cleared you'll remain an (alleged) rapist/wife-beater/pedo for life (and they can happily slander you hiding behind a screen)
PS No affiliation to said club or individual just find it really cheap.
 

Nice to see you care more about others' claims and suspicions than what courts of law decide. And then use "alleged" to chicken out of passing it as your own opinion due to fear of libel and lack of proof.
I presume if someone takes you to court and you are cleared you'll remain an (alleged) rapist/wife-beater/pedo for life (and they can happily slander you hiding behind a screen)
PS No affiliation to said club or individual just find it really cheap.
 

Nice to see you care more about others' claims and suspicions than what courts of law decide. And then use "alleged" to chicken out of passing it as your own opinion due to fear of libel and lack of proof.
I presume if someone takes you to court and you are cleared you'll remain an (alleged) rapist/wife-beater/pedo for life (and they can happily slander you hiding behind a screen)
PS No affiliation to said club or individual just find it really cheap.
 

Nice to see you care more about others' claims and suspicions than what courts of law decide. And then use "alleged" to chicken out of passing it as your own opinion due to fear of libel and lack of proof.
I presume if someone takes you to court and you are cleared you'll remain an (alleged) rapist/wife-beater/pedo for life (and they can happily slander you hiding behind a screen)
PS No affiliation to said club or individual just find it really cheap.
 

Nice to see you care more about others' claims and suspicions than what courts of law decide. And then use "alleged" to chicken out of passing it as your own opinion due to fear of libel and lack of proof.
I presume if someone takes you to court and you are cleared you'll remain an (alleged) rapist/wife-beater/pedo for life (and they can happily slander you hiding behind a screen)
PS No affiliation to said club or individual just find it really cheap.
 

'Luck' is not the number of goals and wins, it's whether the goals and wins were proportionate to what happened. In fact the luckier we got the bigger our gd and number of wins would be.
Fallacy of the single cause - high gd and number of wins means we were good therefore these were only a result of us being good and luck was not involved.

Not sure what your evidence is but I hope you trust mine as I've worked a bit on this.
After 46 games the average percentage of lucky/unlucky games net for a team is precisely 9%. The maximum is over 20% -hard to believe I know. This is based on the standard +2 clear chances aggregate worthy of a win.
The average discrepancy to the chances/goal average is 0.35, the maximum over 1. These can all be positive or negative.
You understand what the above mean in terms of points, goals and league positions at the end of a season.

Not sure what your evidence is but I hope you trust mine as I've worked a bit on this.
After 46 games the average percentage of lucky/unlucky games net for a team is precisely 9%. The maximum is over 20% -hard to believe I know. This is based on the standard +2 clear chances aggregate worthy of a win.
The average discrepancy to the chances/goal average is 0.35, the maximum over 1. These can all be positive or negative.
You understand what the above mean in terms of points, goals and league positions at the end of a season.

Not sure what your evidence is but I hope you trust mine as I've worked a bit on this.
After 46 games the average percentage of lucky/unlucky games net for a team is precisely 9%. The maximum is over 20% -hard to believe I know. This is based on the standard +2 clear chances aggregate worthy of a win.
The average discrepancy to the chances/goal average is 0.35, the maximum over 1. These can all be positive or negative.
You understand what the above mean in terms of points, goals and league positions at the end of a season.

'Luck' is not the number of goals and wins, it's whether the goals and wins were proportionate to what happened. In fact the luckier we got the bigger our gd and number of wins would be.
Fallacy of the single cause - high gd and number of wins means we were good therefore these were only a result of us being good and luck was not involved.

Are you being held captive, tap once for yes.

'Luck' is not the number of goals and wins, it's whether the goals and wins were proportionate to what happened. In fact the luckier we got the bigger our gd and number of wins would be.
Fallacy of the single cause - high gd and number of wins means we were good therefore these were only a result of us being good and luck was not involved.

This may ignore the majority who haven't, that correlation doesn't mean causation for those who have, and also the longer term trend.
You may be interested in this research that covered a large period, basically the impact of a change is minimal after an initial "bounce", and that bounce is just the preceding dip in results, quite often due to luck, that led to the change regressing to the mean. There has also been evidence showing the same would happen without a change.
 

The opposite has been the case and by a long way, Wycombe was the 8th game we've scored less than we should have and we've scored more in 19(!)
Creativity is the area we've lacked compared to others -maybe down to conservative tactics not quality- rather than taking the chances.

The opposite has been the case and by a long way, Wycombe was the 8th game we've scored less than we should have and we've scored more in 19(!)
Creativity is the area we've lacked compared to others -maybe down to conservative tactics not quality- rather than taking the chances.

The opposite has been the case and by a long way, Wycombe was the 8th game we've scored less than we should have and we've scored more in 19(!)
Creativity is the area we've lacked compared to others -maybe down to conservative tactics not quality- rather than taking the chances.

This may ignore the majority who haven't, that correlation doesn't mean causation for those who have, and also the longer term trend.
You may be interested in this research that covered a large period, basically the impact of a change is minimal after an initial "bounce", and that bounce is just the preceding dip in results, quite often due to luck, that led to the change regressing to the mean. There has also been evidence showing the same would happen without a change.
 

Are you referring to this maybe? If so it was way behind him.

Are you referring to this maybe? If so it was way behind him.

Wildsmith would of put that chance away with a Header . 

The Pythagorean is not used for football analysis. The lesser reason, because football has 3 points for a win and also draws so it needs a different exponent (and will over-predict every team near the top). The main reason, that it in baseball for which it was conceived -or other high-scoring sports such as basketball- hundreds of runs/points are scored/conceded per season which closely reflects performance, in football goals are rare and do not equal performance. xG was the evolution of Bill James's baseball methods for football, you could have put these instead of goals in the formula or -even better- simply used xPts or net xG instead.
As for your conclusion that the team has "underperformed" this couldn't be further from the truth (and folk who have watched our games may attest to this empirically, we have been scoring without being too creative and winning even games on a regular basis). One xPts has us 7 points better off, I have us about 10.

I never look at xG when I've watched the game(s) as that would be idiotic so the above is simply not true (or if it is it's only a coincidence).
But sorry if you think that's boring or off-putting, I'll try and post less - not that easy when everyone disagrees eh
 
Except I never said that did I? I said it's not the perfect analysis tool because it will never do that.
 
The luck element would be getting rewarded with 2 goals from only 2 clear chances (that would normally take 7.4), which then allowed you to sit back. But the win would be just about fair as long as the opposition created nothing afterwards.
 
It all points to: Slightly worse this year (remaining schedule caveat) - lucky this year (with points/results not necessarily position) - unlucky last year - one maybe two stronger rivals last year.
 
Another thing I haven't said (yet)

In other words that we have scored more and conceded fewer than would normally be due for our play (the opposite of last year). You call that skill, I call it sampling variability.

I am not dismissive of the club, I am dismissive of misguided opinions.
 
22-23 chances vs 3 best rivals
Ipswich h 4-4
Ipswich a 0-4.5
Weds h 1.5-1
Weds a (4-6) red-adjusted 5.5-4.5
Posh h (6.5-3.5) red-adjusted 5.5-4.5
Posh a 4-5.5
23-24 chances vs 3 best rivals
Portsmouth h 4.5-6.5
Portsmouth a 2.5-5
Posh h 4-8
Posh a 5.5-7
Bolton h 3-4.5
Bolton a (2.5-6) red-adjusted 4-4.5
22-23 total: 20.5 for 24 against (with Ipswich much tougher but Weds away dead rubber)
23-24 total: 23.5 for 35.5 against

In the game I saw we scored 2 goals and created nothing else of note in 90 minutes.
Portsmouth on top of their 2 goals missed an open goal, had a 1v1 saved by Wildsmith's legs and the penalty incident at the end. Calling the above an even game and a fair draw is a bit of a stretch.