|
Post by nott1 on Oct 27, 2019 19:11:58 GMT
SACK HIM NOW
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 8:19:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 29, 2019 8:25:17 GMT
Was talking about this at work the other day, I simply don't get how the calculation is achieved considering that we are in the bottom five for shots on target. I work in gambling and a lot of store is given to this measure however the fact that we've gone up in the table after the Wednesday and Millwall games suggest the whole thing is utterly bogus to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 8:36:57 GMT
Was talking about this at work the other day, I simply don't get how the calculation is achieved considering that we are in the bottom five for shots on target. I work in gambling and a lot of store is given to this measure however the fact that we've gone up in the table after the Wednesday and Millwall games suggest the whole thing is utterly bogus to me. I like my stats, but these analytical guys on Twitter take it to another level.....
|
|
|
Post by pipegatepotter on Oct 29, 2019 9:04:19 GMT
Stats mean absolutely nothing. This fascination with percentage possession is half of the cause of where we are now, Hughes wanting to increase this for some reason? League tables do not lie, especially after 14 games.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 9:09:32 GMT
Stats mean absolutely nothing. This fascination with percentage possession is half of the cause of where we are now, Hughes wanting to increase this for some reason? League tables do not lie, especially after 14 games. Disagree they do mean something they just get over analysed these days..........
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Oct 29, 2019 9:14:53 GMT
To be fair to him in the last international break a table was produced to show where teams should be based on chances created for and against. Stoke should have been 8th as they've created as many chances as most other teams and conceded a lot less chances than others. The appalling statistic was that something like 75% of the chances created against us have resulted in goals. For every other team that statistic is below 50%. Jones did also say the table doesn't lie at this stage in the season. Perhaps more than a false position the statistics show what a lily livered bunch of players we have. Furthermore as alluded to in another thread we have played a lot more matches against the top teams than the bottom teams: 1 West Bromwich 2 Preston 3 - 1 Away 3 Leeds Utd 0 - 3 Home 4 Sheffield Wed 1 - 0 Away 5 Fulham 2 - 0 Home 6 Bristol City 1 - 2 Home 7 QP Rangers 1 - 2 Home 8 Charlton 3 - 1 Away 9 Nottm Forest 2 - 3 Home 10 Swansea City 1 - 2 Away 11 Birmingham City 2 - 1 Away 12 Hull City 13 Brentford 0 - 0 Away 14 Cardiff City 15 Millwall 2 - 0 Away 16 Derby County 2 - 2 Home 17 Blackburn 18 Luton Town 19 Wigan Athletic 20 Huddersfield 0 - 1 Home 21 Reading 22 Middlesbrough 23 Stoke City 24 Barnsley Just 4 matches against the other bottom 11 teams. I would like to be optimistic but its possible those teams are in the top half in aprt because of the 3 points we have gifted them all. The others might move up after playing us, Saturday would support this worry, Millwall were below average and comfortably outplayed and outthought us
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Oct 29, 2019 9:33:05 GMT
Was talking about this at work the other day, I simply don't get how the calculation is achieved considering that we are in the bottom five for shots on target. I work in gambling and a lot of store is given to this measure however the fact that we've gone up in the table after the Wednesday and Millwall games suggest the whole thing is utterly bogus to me. I like my stats, but these analytical guys on Twitter take it to another level..... The table is based on chances and type of chances created. Our shots on target just compounds how poor we have been as it is our misses not gk saves which have stopped us from scoring. As an example the chance Allen missed v Derby would have been scored a high percentage of times but the shot was not evenontarget.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 29, 2019 9:44:05 GMT
I like my stats, but these analytical guys on Twitter take it to another level..... The table is based on chances and type of chances created. Our shots on target just compounds how poor we have been as it is our misses not gk saves which have stopped us from scoring. As an example the chance Allen missed v Derby would have been scored a high percentage of times but the shot was not evenontarget. Somehow though before the Wednesday game we were 8th in this table and after two performance that would make Alan Ball blush we’re up to 6th. It sounds nonsense to me
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Oct 29, 2019 9:53:12 GMT
Jones has lost his mind!! I fully expect him to turn up dressed as Napoleon at the press conference
|
|
|
Post by jarhead on Oct 29, 2019 9:58:53 GMT
Sadly he’s waiting for the big pay off. He’s a broken sorry mess of a man.
His time is up.
|
|
|
Post by NassauDave on Oct 29, 2019 10:43:52 GMT
Did he really just say we should be 6th😮😄 26th if it was possible. What a whopping 🔔 end.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 29, 2019 11:15:26 GMT
Stats mean absolutely nothing. This fascination with percentage possession is half of the cause of where we are now, Hughes wanting to increase this for some reason? League tables do not lie, especially after 14 games. You've contradicted yourself there as a league table is basically a list of stats 😉
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 29, 2019 11:17:34 GMT
Jones has lost his mind!! I fully expect him to turn up dressed as Napoleon at the press conference "We're a top six side"
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 29, 2019 11:21:42 GMT
Fans need to turn, only way he's gonna be sacked. Clapping them off when we get bummed by the baggies won't help. Unfortunately this is the only way anything will get done. It did it for Rowett. It's not like he hasn't been given a chance, he would have been sacked by EVERY other club in this League 38 games 6 wins 28 goals Not even remotely good enough plus its shit football. The fans have been very patient and supportive. Being passive will not help this football club.
|
|
|
Post by pipegatepotter on Oct 29, 2019 12:16:54 GMT
Stats mean absolutely nothing. This fascination with percentage possession is half of the cause of where we are now, Hughes wanting to increase this for some reason? League tables do not lie, especially after 14 games. You've contradicted yourself there as a league table is basically a list of stats 😉 That's fair enough, but it's points that win prizes not how many times you can pointlessly pass it around the back four before giving it back to the goalkeeper who then just twats it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Oct 29, 2019 13:17:25 GMT
I've always said that you are not in a false position or didn't deserve to win a match if you had all the chance to the opposition's one chance if they scored it. Scoring goals and stopping the opposition from scoring is the only thing that gets you a result. There are no points for creating chances. What the stats prove is what an appalling bunch of players we have. In some ways the manager can't be blamed if his system is creating chances and preventing the opposition from having chances. Not that I'm particularly backing Jones, he bought the players and pick them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 13:26:49 GMT
Was talking about this at work the other day, I simply don't get how the calculation is achieved considering that we are in the bottom five for shots on target. I work in gambling and a lot of store is given to this measure however the fact that we've gone up in the table after the Wednesday and Millwall games suggest the whole thing is utterly bogus to me. It depends on the games played, we haven't had a lot of shots on target against us either I don't think. I think Wednesday was predicted a draw, Millwall definitely was predicted a loss by xG.
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Oct 29, 2019 13:30:38 GMT
Nathan seems to be saying we are in a false position. Nathan I have news for you, we are not and the sooner you realise that the quicker you can start working on digging us out of this met. My wife often tells me the same , she seems to think I’m stretch Armstrong 😎
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Oct 29, 2019 13:58:09 GMT
I would put an amendment in all future contracts (ala Brexit) for managers,that if ,in the view of fans the manager is shit and his team is playing crap there will be no payoff above ten bob!
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Oct 29, 2019 16:20:11 GMT
XG stats are NOT shots on target it looks at chances and how often similar chances are scored. If our forwards put those chances off target the xG is still the same. In other words a lot of our misses would have been scored by other teams. That's why we are under achieving. Equally chances against us which result in goals would not against other defences. Jack's mistakes and our inability to defend the far post contributes to this.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Oct 29, 2019 19:12:32 GMT
Was talking about this at work the other day, I simply don't get how the calculation is achieved considering that we are in the bottom five for shots on target. I work in gambling and a lot of store is given to this measure however the fact that we've gone up in the table after the Wednesday and Millwall games suggest the whole thing is utterly bogus to me. There’s a couple of ways to do these. I suspect EFL Stats has award a side 3 points if the match xG differential is positive and greater than a certain value, below that value and both sides get a point. A more informative way is to take the expected goal value of each chance created in a game and run a simulation on the chances. (So a penalty has an xG of 0.8, assign it a random number between 1 and 0, if the random number falls between 0.8 and zero a goal is scored, otherwise it is no goal). Run that for each chance in the game and you’ll get a total number of goals for each team. That’s the match score line based on xG Repeat for every game played in the Championship to date. Add up the points and compile a current table, with points and goals scored and allowed in the usual way. You have one virtual table. Repeat 10, 000 times using random number to “convert” xG into virtual goals. You’ve now got 10,000 virtual tables based on chance creation and you can see how often a team is currently top, 2nd all the way to 24th. Stoke’s current, most likely position is 7th based on xG, but that’s a bit misleading because they are 7th in 7 out of every 100 iterations. They are 8th in 6 out of every, 9th in 5/100. By the time you get to 20th there’s around a 3% chance you’ll find Stoke occupying that spot. In short, we could be almost anywhere, with a slight bias towards the top half of the table. Why use chance creation, rather than actual goals? Because chance creation has proven to be a more repeatable skill than actual goals scored or allowed. Liverpool used this approach when hiring Klopp. Dortmund were in a relegation scrap, but their chance creation indicated they were the 2nd best team in Germany at the time.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 29, 2019 19:49:19 GMT
We are in a false position under Jones’ management.
If there were 100 more teams in the division we would be 100 places lower.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Oct 30, 2019 8:35:55 GMT
Was talking about this at work the other day, I simply don't get how the calculation is achieved considering that we are in the bottom five for shots on target. I work in gambling and a lot of store is given to this measure however the fact that we've gone up in the table after the Wednesday and Millwall games suggest the whole thing is utterly bogus to me. There’s a couple of ways to do these. I suspect EFL Stats has award a side 3 points if the match xG differential is positive and greater than a certain value, below that value and both sides get a point. A more informative way is to take the expected goal value of each chance created in a game and run a simulation on the chances. (So a penalty has an xG of 0.8, assign it a random number between 1 and 0, if the random number falls between 0.8 and zero a goal is scored, otherwise it is no goal). Run that for each chance in the game and you’ll get a total number of goals for each team. That’s the match score line based on xG Repeat for every game played in the Championship to date. Add up the points and compile a current table, with points and goals scored and allowed in the usual way. You have one virtual table. Repeat 10, 000 times using random number to “convert” xG into virtual goals. You’ve now got 10,000 virtual tables based on chance creation and you can see how often a team is currently top, 2nd all the way to 24th. Stoke’s current, most likely position is 7th based on xG, but that’s a bit misleading because they are 7th in 7 out of every 100 iterations. They are 8th in 6 out of every, 9th in 5/100. By the time you get to 20th there’s around a 3% chance you’ll find Stoke occupying that spot. In short, we could be almost anywhere, with a slight bias towards the top half of the table. Why use chance creation, rather than actual goals? Because chance creation has proven to be a more repeatable skill than actual goals scored or allowed. Liverpool used this approach when hiring Klopp. Dortmund were in a relegation scrap, but their chance creation indicated they were the 2nd best team in Germany at the time. Thanks for that it explains a bit more but still seems to suggest that there is a reason why we should stick to Nathan as it would seem his method is working but we can't score the goals our play deserves in most matches. Interesting that Klopp was chosen by this method. I hadn't realised he was in a relegation fight when Liverpool appointed him. Gives us hope yet.
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Oct 30, 2019 8:55:09 GMT
XG is a useless statistic which means nothing. Leicester scored 9 against Southampton but had an XG rating of 2.9 There is only one statistic that counts and that is where you sit in the table.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Oct 30, 2019 10:12:49 GMT
[/quote]Thanks for that it explains a bit more but still seems to suggest that there is a reason why we should stick to Nathan as it would seem his method is working but we can't score the goals our play deserves in most matches. Interesting that Klopp was chosen by this method. I hadn't realised he was in a relegation fight when Liverpool appointed him. Gives us hope yet. [/quote] The biggest disconnect is between xG allowed (1.2/game) & goals allowed (1.8/game). The usual reason for this is individual errors (check) or opponents pinging shots into the top corner from 30 yards. Neither tend to persist. Either your keeper stops making howlers or they're replaced by someone else (check) and the rate you actually concede goals (the outcome) tends towards the quality & quantity of chances you allow (the process). The "we should be 6th" stats based narrative needs placing in context. If you tally up all 10,000 simulated iterations of the league based on the chance quality & quantity created and allowed in every game to date, the likelihood that Stoke & everyone else * could* occupy a particular range of league positions looks like this. The red is where a side actually is, the blue + % figure is how likely they are to occupy that range of positions. Our most likely position is between 7th & 14th (it's a 43% chance). The bottom line is we're 23rd but we have the process of a side that is most likely to be somewhere between 7th & 14th & that's the basis you should judge our ability to beat the drop. Compare that to Barnsley who are bottom & based on xG deserve to be in that position. That's why xG is useful & partly why Barnsley are a lot shorter price to go down than we are. Bottom line. Football is a low scoring sport where randomness has a very big effect, especially where there's lots of teams of similar underlying quality.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Oct 30, 2019 10:30:12 GMT
XG is a useless statistic which means nothing. Leicester scored 9 against Southampton but had an XG rating of 2.9 There is only one statistic that counts and that is where you sit in the table. I would agree - we are where we deserve to be because we can't score goals which is the most important part of football. It does suggest though that Nathan and his tactics are working if only we could take our chances. Imagine him going somewhere else where there was a genuine goal scorer and tearing up the league with his diamond. How would you feel then? I almost feel keep him and go all out for a goal scorer in January which is what we should have done in the summer instead of bringing in a ton of mediocre players. Perhaps the new recruitment guy can sort us as I'm not impressed with Nathan's recruitment.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Oct 30, 2019 10:31:39 GMT
XG is a useless statistic which means nothing. Leicester scored 9 against Southampton but had an XG rating of 2.9 There is only one statistic that counts and that is where you sit in the table. The metric I saw suggested it was 4.85. And it's not that unreasonable, look at some of the goals: Maddinson direct free kick from 25 yards - Don't see that too often, probably 1 in 20 free kick from that position? Perez ridiculous back post volley - Given the angle, the difficulty on controlling that shot and the speed of the ball, certainly not a gimme. Tielemans somehow squeezing it through 4/5 bodies - The shot literally goes through the legs of 3 players cleanly, again I'd say that's blocked most times. Perez shot that beats the keeper on the near post should be saved. That's 4 goals that could well be argued shouldn't go in most of the time which to me suggests a figure of 4.85 is reasonable. How often do you see 9-0s in football, it's an exception to the rule so therefore would lie outside most statistical models anyway. But there are limits to its utlity, which is why I disagree with it being used as gospel without consideration to other factors that up to now stats can't answer. But it's not meaningless at all. For example last year, our conversion rate was as good as Villa's for chances, but Villa were simply creating double the numbers of chances that we were in game. Xg would help to show that by demonstrating our chances were decent but there's not enough of them and if we miss a sitter then it's unlikely we'll get another chance like it. Which again, for me is pretty accurate in the context of last season.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Oct 30, 2019 10:57:03 GMT
[/quote] The metric I saw suggested it was 4.85.
[/quote]
4.85 xG gets you 9 or more goals around 4% of the time.
If anyone want's to know how the 4.85 is calculated, feel free to ask because I calculated it :-)
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Oct 30, 2019 11:10:14 GMT
What are you trying to say? 😜
|
|