JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 All this xG guff reminds me of this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Stats should be used to back up an argument in football, not be the basis of it. If you are of the opinion that we're a bit 'meh' but in spite of this we're still second then you have a bit more weight to your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Three Opta statisticians were hunting in the woods when they saw a deer. The first took aim, fired and missed to the left. The second took aim, fired and missed to the right. The third said "We got it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 The really worrying thing about this is, although we live in a world where people die because they can't afford food and drink, someone, somewhere, is actually being given money to compile this tripe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsnip Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 13th??!! This is all because our inept manager won't play Chris ******* Martin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 I need @Ellafella to translate. Preferably with a splattering of literal quotations from bairds back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Obviously all the usual lies, damn lies and statistics applies, but it does back up how I've been seeing the matches this season - we tend to create a few really good chances and by-and-large take them. But we give up a few really good chances as well, and mostly get away with them (a Carson wonder-save, a great last-ditch tackle, a horrific miss from the opposition etc). So that's not to say we don't deserve to be where we are or anything, but the margins between winning and losing have been razor-thin. If the forwards start missing a few more chances, and the defenders start getting a bit sloppy, those narrow wins are going become draws and defeats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandalf's shin pads Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 I haven't watched the video but perhaps it has something to do with their criteria for and definition of chances conceded and created. We play a very defensive, counter attacking style which usually involves surrendering possession, 'playing without the ball' for long periods and picking teams off when they slip up. It stands to reason that the opposition will spend large periods camped around our box putting crosses in and having shots. While our game might seem less impressive 'on paper', the actual results and performances suggest the fault is with their assessment, not our strengths and weaknesses. We just play our game more effectively than others do theirs against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistaram Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Only one stat in football what's in that far right column Pts. Everything else pretty much irrelevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 I think it illustrates perfectly why we are less entertaining to supporters like me who liked the old possession based,creative footballing style. We are,on the flip side,very efficient with our defence and ruthless with the chances we are offered. Some teams such as wolves(basically just wolves)are able to do do both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archied Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Me I just want to win , score lots of goals and not have that constant gut wrenching feeling that we are always going to crumble and concede goals at the end no matter how well we play for the first 75 minutes or so ,, so for me I’m pretty happy with our lot at this point because I’m one of those sad people that gets grizzly and deflated when derby lose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Ram Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Shows how clinical Vydra's been, I genuinely think he makes us a top 2 side (attacking wise) all on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike93rh Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 This is fascinating, if you're into your models and stats like me. It also backs up a feeling I've had of late that we've been quite lucky to keep some of the clean sheets we have been doing. particularly the 0-0 against Hull. Our xG (A) must've been around 4 that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archied Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 I think sometimes people forget to value the fact that teams missing chances against us can be caused by the fact that we defend well and people snatch at those chances because of that,, just a thought but I’m sure that has a bearing on some chances missed that you would perhaps expect teams to put away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamsFan10 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Loads of old football heads dismiss expected goals in the media, with most thinking its meant to do what it says on the tin (i.e predict the amount of goals). The usefulness of the stat comes in comparing it to real life results hence being able to identify where players are outperforming others. This doesn't mean we are in a false position, it means our defence and attack is performing far better than an average team in the division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellafella Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, brady1993 said: (This ended up being longer winded than planned will write about interpretation in a little while) Oook so there's two elements to discuss here the validity of the statistic and the interpretation of the statistic. Statistic Alright so the statistic is attempting to measure the number of goals you'd expect to score or concede based on the quality of the chances a team has. The quality of chance is defined through position on the pitch, the assist type, whether it's a head or a foot and whether it's a big chance. It's then assigned a percentage based on the likelihood of the "average" player scoring from there based on a training dataset. Then it's simply a matter of adding the percentage value for each chance to give you an overall expected goals scored or xG. There are a few things about this that immediatley spring to mind: First is that it doesn't appear to account for proximity to defenders, i.e. how likely a defender is to getting a block in. It doesn't appear to directly account for what position the player taking the shot plays in (although is likely mitigated with the training data set). They don't detail how the training data set was sourced (different leagues may have different probabilities from scoring from different positions). There is an implicit assumption by using such a cumulative statistic that if a player takes 10 shots, in the same situation, with say an expected 10% chance of scoring he will score a goal. However it's important to bear in mind that each shot is independent of what has happened before it and therefore the expected number goals would be lower. The probability of scoring a goal in that situation is not 1 and the model appears to overlook that. Also I'd be very interested to see how strong the correlation is between xG and actual goals and how strong the correlation between x+/- is with results. For the obvious reason in both cases that it doesn't account for good finishing or good last ditch defending. It's probably a pretty good statistic for helping to judge a sides performance analytically but it isn't the be all end all and you should consider carefully how you apply it. I haven't looked at the guts of this model in detail. I will do and I will add anything that @brady1993 hasn't picked up but it sounds to me that the above is a good and thorough explanation of what this model purports to do. It basicially says, on the balance of possession and chances created / conceded, in a given space, we expect any team to score this many goals in a game and concede this many. It then adjusts "results" accordingly and re-calculates the table. It is a theoretical model. Does it predict "reality"? Yes, up to a point, but no way near 100". Does it mean we are in a "false" position? No. We are 2nd. The whole thing is based on a "possession-based" football model. But we don't play possession-based football. I posted some charts from Ben Mayhew's Experiental 3-6-1 site the other day. I didn't really make any interpretative comments because I wanted others to pick out the issues; but there are many pointers to this "Expected Goals" issue; indeed Ben Mayhew also has an "Expected Goals" chart. I've re-produced one of the charts below: This chart gives a cross-tabulation of a simple statistic. It shows the relative number of shots taken {at the opposition's goal} compared with the number of shots faced {at the team's goal they're defending}. What the chart does, is to show that teams at the top of the table (eg Wolves) tend to have relatively more shots at the opposition's goal, compared with how many the opposition have at their goal per game. The teams who cluster in the green space are the ones at the top of the table - mainly. It's possible then to "describe" the distributions of quadrants which are labelled "Busy attack, quiet defence" (teams at the top of the league), "Quiet attack, quiet defence" (teams just outside the top), "Busy attack, busy defence" (teams like Florist...mid-table but with poor defence, can score but concede a lot) and "quiet attack, busy defence" (teams fighting relegation". All the Championship teams are distributed in this 2-dimensional space and when you look at each team, you tend to think "yes, that's where you'd expect Cardiff City to be". But there are 1 or 2 outliers that make you think, "how come they're there?" given where they are in the League? For me, those outliers are: Brentford, Ipswich and Derby County. I tipped Brentford to be the late-coming "surprise team" and to get a point at Wolves last night (they lost 3-0!). Ipswich and Derby County both have something in common...they don't play possession-based football. So the model doesn't handle those. In fact, the point of showing this chart above is that according to it, Derby are very average and appear at the intersection of the cross-hairs - they take an average number of shots compared with all other Championship sides, and they face and average number of shots compared with all other championship sides. It does really boil down to quality of finishing or at least the quality of the possesssion. As @brady1993 explained, their xG model takes no account of defender proximity and last ditch defending. If it did, it would have predicted Derby to be in the top 2. So, will we continue to do well? Yes, in all probability, although it does seem to be that a 3-5-2 formation can very much strangle "Rowettball". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Bloody hell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 6 hours ago, Paul71 said: I reckon a better measure to work on is aG 'Actual Goals' I've re-run the results based on your Ag measure, and we finish the season in the Silver medal position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 3 hours ago, duncanjwitham said: Obviously all the usual lies, damn lies and statistics applies, but it does back up how I've been seeing the matches this season - we tend to create a few really good chances and by-and-large take them. But we give up a few really good chances as well, and mostly get away with them (a Carson wonder-save, a great last-ditch tackle, a horrific miss from the opposition etc). So that's not to say we don't deserve to be where we are or anything, but the margins between winning and losing have been razor-thin. If the forwards start missing a few more chances, and the defenders start getting a bit sloppy, those narrow wins are going become draws and defeats. And that is all that statistics and hence probability is pointing to. Continue as we are then if we do revert to the average (which is exactly the scenario you are painting) then we will struggle to finish top 6. Happily we have already "banked" the unlikely outcomes of the first half season into points so those cannot be taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.