|
Post by stokiedan17 on Aug 16, 2022 7:28:37 GMT
We must be doing something right to have one of the highest expected goals in the league. It’s just a shame we make so many stupid mistakes at the back. If we could just sort out our defending we will in with a right chance of getting promoted Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Aug 16, 2022 8:24:07 GMT
Cutting out defensive mistakes would be a good start but our conversion rate is also poor with just 3 goals from 58 attempts in our last 3 games.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 16, 2022 8:29:27 GMT
Wasn't it decent under Jones at first?
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Aug 16, 2022 8:33:05 GMT
We do seem to be brighter, although I think the bulk of that would have come from the Blackpool game. We were hammered on XG at Millwall, and would even have lost in XG terms at Huddersfield without the penalty, which takes some doing with how that game went. Opta have us 10th from open play XG so far (and 3rd in set-piece XG, which will include about 0.80 for the missed pen I think) It's a step-up from last season, but it's such a small sample size, hard to really glean anything from it yet. We've conceded the 7th most XG from open play, and 8th most from set-pieces. And still managed to concede a lot more goals than we should have from those chances, which Tachyon suggested was down to goalkeeping underperformance - which is a recurring theme The attacking process is consistent, if not slightly improved from previous Championship seasons. 3 or 4 games is a tiny sample size. Three actual goals or fewer from around 7 xG happens around 10% of the time. (Strip out Morecambe and it happens 34% of the time, so 8 Championship teams would have our level of league under-performance merely by chance after 3 games). Also under-performing our attacking xG hasn't been an issue in the previous 123 MON league games, so you're most likely looking at random variation. You can't alter what you can't control. Our attacking xG is up, not down & poor conversion is likely just "noise". Defensively, there is more of an issue. We're allowing around the same quality and quantity of chances for a typical MON team, but it's just a 2% chance we concede 5 or more goals from the post shot xG of 2.54 (for on target attempts). That's a recurring issue since 20/21, we're keeping chances well contained, but often they aren't being saved at anywhere near Championship level performance.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 16, 2022 8:50:21 GMT
We do seem to be brighter, although I think the bulk of that would have come from the Blackpool game. I think at Millwall our xG was around 0.35. And then both Huddersfield and Blackpool around 2.3 or so. The problem is the goals we are conceding more. Just like the post you quoted. There was a 2% chance of us conceding 5 goals from those opportunities. That's the real issue. I have no doubts our conversion will improve.
|
|
|
Post by theonlooker on Aug 16, 2022 8:52:26 GMT
xG stats are pointless when you have a goalkeeper who lets in pretty much every simple shot he's faced with.
You might aswell go and piss on an electric fence for a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Aug 16, 2022 9:03:48 GMT
Shot location for and against in the Championship to date. It's not that unlikely that a team turns 4.7 xG into just 3 goals or fewer. Raw xG is only half the story. Distribution of low quality attempts and connected shot events also play a part. Our post shot xG (which just measures the likelihood that on target shots will result in a goal is 4.3 for (3 goals scored) and 2.4 against (5 goals allowed).
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 16, 2022 11:15:25 GMT
Shot location for and against in the Championship to date. It's not that unlikely that a team turns 4.7 xG into just 3 goals or fewer. Raw xG is only half the story. Distribution of low quality attempts and connected shot events also play a part. View Attachment Our post shot xG (which just measures the likelihood that on target shots will result in a goal is 4.3 for (3 goals scored) and 2.4 against (5 goals allowed). So that's saying their keepers did about a goal better than average at saving our shots and Bursik did about 2-3 goals worse? Or does that include defenders blocking shots too.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Aug 16, 2022 11:35:43 GMT
Shot location for and against in the Championship to date. It's not that unlikely that a team turns 4.7 xG into just 3 goals or fewer. Raw xG is only half the story. Distribution of low quality attempts and connected shot events also play a part. View Attachment Our post shot xG (which just measures the likelihood that on target shots will result in a goal is 4.3 for (3 goals scored) and 2.4 against (5 goals allowed). So that's saying their keepers did about a goal better than average at saving our shots and Bursik did about 2-3 goals worse? Or does that include defenders blocking shots too. It's entirely keeper dependent, no blocks included. Oppo keepers have made some good saves (Gayle vs Blackpool springs to mind). That's most likely going to become less extreme going forward. I don't want it to sound like a witch hunt, but at our end we've had a problem for the best part of a season and a half that's as clear as day to see in the data & it hasn't been addressed.
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Aug 16, 2022 11:49:31 GMT
We do seem to be brighter, although I think the bulk of that would have come from the Blackpool game. We were hammered on XG at Millwall, and would even have lost in XG terms at Huddersfield without the penalty, which takes some doing with how that game went. Opta have us 10th from open play XG so far (and 3rd in set-piece XG, which will include about 0.80 for the missed pen I think) It's a step-up from last season, but it's such a small sample size, hard to really glean anything from it yet. We've conceded the 7th most XG from open play, and 8th most from set-pieces. And still managed to concede a lot more goals than we should have from those chances, which Tachyon suggested was down to goalkeeping underperformance - which is a recurring theme The attacking process is consistent, if not slightly improved from previous Championship seasons. 3 or 4 games is a tiny sample size. Three actual goals or fewer from around 7 xG happens around 10% of the time. (Strip out Morecambe and it happens 34% of the time, so 8 Championship teams would have our level of league under-performance merely by chance after 3 games). Also under-performing our attacking xG hasn't been an issue in the previous 123 MON league games, so you're most likely looking at random variation. You can't alter what you can't control. Our attacking xG is up, not down & poor conversion is likely just "noise". Defensively, there is more of an issue. We're allowing around the same quality and quantity of chances for a typical MON team, but it's just a 2% chance we concede 5 or more goals from the post shot xG of 2.54 (for on target attempts). That's a recurring issue since 20/21, we're keeping chances well contained, but often they aren't being saved at anywhere near Championship level performance. Bursik isn't ready. He needs loaning out to learn his craft on another club's time. It's too critical a position to gamble with as the stats show. Under Jones we had good xg but we also had Butland fucking up left, right and centre. Having a keeper the defence doesn't trust also piles pressure on them as they know a mistake is going to lead to a goal.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 16, 2022 12:02:27 GMT
So that's saying their keepers did about a goal better than average at saving our shots and Bursik did about 2-3 goals worse? Or does that include defenders blocking shots too. It's entirely keeper dependent, no blocks included. Oppo keepers have made some good saves (Gayle vs Blackpool springs to mind). That's most likely going to become less extreme going forward. I don't want it to sound like a witch hunt, but at our end we've had a problem for the best part of a season and a half that's as clear as day to see in the data & it hasn't been addressed. Out of interest tachyon. I raised my concerns about Bursik a few months ago (and many times before) and I was referencing his save percentage. But I swear I remember you defending him at the time and saying that the goals he conceded are mostly goals he would expect to concede and that it's just bad luck or something. Do you recall this or am I imagining it.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Aug 16, 2022 12:10:13 GMT
It's entirely keeper dependent, no blocks included. Oppo keepers have made some good saves (Gayle vs Blackpool springs to mind). That's most likely going to become less extreme going forward. I don't want it to sound like a witch hunt, but at our end we've had a problem for the best part of a season and a half that's as clear as day to see in the data & it hasn't been addressed. Out of interest tachyon. I raised my concerns about Bursik a few months ago (and many times before) and I was referencing his save percentage. But I swear I remember you defending him at the time and saying that the goals he conceded are mostly goals he would expect to concede and that it's just bad luck or something. Do you recall this or am I imagining it. Taychon last season pointed out the Bursik is one of the lowest performing Keepers across all leagues for saving regular shots, think it was low 50% odd.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Aug 16, 2022 12:10:18 GMT
We do seem to be brighter, although I think the bulk of that would have come from the Blackpool game. We were hammered on XG at Millwall, and would even have lost in XG terms at Huddersfield without the penalty, which takes some doing with how that game went. Opta have us 10th from open play XG so far (and 3rd in set-piece XG, which will include about 0.80 for the missed pen I think) It's a step-up from last season, but it's such a small sample size, hard to really glean anything from it yet. We've conceded the 7th most XG from open play, and 8th most from set-pieces. And still managed to concede a lot more goals than we should have from those chances, which Tachyon suggested was down to goalkeeping underperformance - which is a recurring theme The attacking process is consistent, if not slightly improved from previous Championship seasons. 3 or 4 games is a tiny sample size. Three actual goals or fewer from around 7 xG happens around 10% of the time. (Strip out Morecambe and it happens 34% of the time, so 8 Championship teams would have our level of league under-performance merely by chance after 3 games). Also under-performing our attacking xG hasn't been an issue in the previous 123 MON league games, so you're most likely looking at random variation. You can't alter what you can't control. Our attacking xG is up, not down & poor conversion is likely just "noise". Defensively, there is more of an issue. We're allowing around the same quality and quantity of chances for a typical MON team, but it's just a 2% chance we concede 5 or more goals from the post shot xG of 2.54 (for on target attempts). That's a recurring issue since 20/21, we're keeping chances well contained, but often they aren't being saved at anywhere near Championship level performance. Which really shows what a load of shite this xG stat nonsense is. No keeper in the world saves any of the goals we have conceded this season, apart from maybe Huddersfields 1st but that was difficult.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 16, 2022 12:23:21 GMT
Out of interest tachyon. I raised my concerns about Bursik a few months ago (and many times before) and I was referencing his save percentage. But I swear I remember you defending him at the time and saying that the goals he conceded are mostly goals he would expect to concede and that it's just bad luck or something. Do you recall this or am I imagining it. Taychon last season pointed out the Bursik is one of the lowest performing Keepers across all leagues for saving regular shots, think it was low 50% odd. This is the post which I'm referring to: Bursik Shot PlacementShot placement for all attempts on target faced by JB in Championship. Blue circles are goals, orange saves. Bigger the circle, the more difficult the "save". Replace JB with a Championship average keeper, simulate every attempt 10,000 times and you only concede more goals than JB did once every 100 simulations. Sub optimal for all concerned. (site's image upload is playing up). Reading the above left me with the impression that maybe I was harsh on him last season.
|
|
|
Post by chiprockets on Aug 16, 2022 12:33:37 GMT
We do seem to be brighter, although I think the bulk of that would have come from the Blackpool game. I think at Millwall our xG was around 0.35. And then both Huddersfield and Blackpool around 2.3 or so. The problem is the goals we are conceding more. Just like the post you quoted. There was a 2% chance of us conceding 5 goals from those opportunities. That's the real issue. I have no doubts our conversion will improve. We also had a penalty in one of those 2.3 matches. so take off 0.8
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 16, 2022 12:37:48 GMT
Taychon last season pointed out the Bursik is one of the lowest performing Keepers across all leagues for saving regular shots, think it was low 50% odd. This is the post which I'm referring to: Bursik Shot PlacementShot placement for all attempts on target faced by JB in Championship. Blue circles are goals, orange saves. Bigger the circle, the more difficult the "save". Replace JB with a Championship average keeper, simulate every attempt 10,000 times and you only concede more goals than JB did once every 100 simulations. Sub optimal for all concerned. (site's image upload is playing up). Reading the above left me with the impression that maybe I was harsh on him last season. You’ve just misread/misunderstood the post I think - tachyon is highlighting Bursik as a problem there
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Aug 16, 2022 12:39:36 GMT
Taychon last season pointed out the Bursik is one of the lowest performing Keepers across all leagues for saving regular shots, think it was low 50% odd. This is the post which I'm referring to: Bursik Shot PlacementShot placement for all attempts on target faced by JB in Championship. Blue circles are goals, orange saves. Bigger the circle, the more difficult the "save". Replace JB with a Championship average keeper, simulate every attempt 10,000 times and you only concede more goals than JB did once every 100 simulations. Sub optimal for all concerned. (site's image upload is playing up). Reading the above left me with the impression that maybe I was harsh on him last season. I went into analyst speak. It says that an average keeper would perform worse the JB just once in every 100 trials. Going back to the sim, there's a 96% chance you would have conceded fewer goals than JB did if he had been replaced by a league average shot stopper. So the most likely conclusion is JB is a below average keeper who has performed in line with that premise concerning his shot stopping abilities.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 16, 2022 12:39:39 GMT
I think at Millwall our xG was around 0.35. And then both Huddersfield and Blackpool around 2.3 or so. The problem is the goals we are conceding more. Just like the post you quoted. There was a 2% chance of us conceding 5 goals from those opportunities. That's the real issue. I have no doubts our conversion will improve. We also had a penalty in one of those 2.3 matches. so take off 0.8 Taking the penalty off and it was 1.49 v 1.26 on expected goals in huddersfield favour.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 16, 2022 12:41:48 GMT
This is the post which I'm referring to: Reading the above left me with the impression that maybe I was harsh on him last season. I went into analyst speak. It says that an average keeper would perform worse the JB just once in every 100 trials. Going back to the sim, there's a 96% chance you would have conceded fewer goals than JB did if he had been replaced by a league average shot stopper. So the most likely conclusion is JB is a below average keeper who has performed in line with that premise concerning his shot stopping abilities. Ahh I completely misread it then though. @potrerlog you are correct. This makes more sense now. And I agree with tachyon that it's concerning he hasn't been replaced because there is certainly a clear coorelation there. What's your view on it @march6 as I know you're a big fan. I don't mean that in a bad way either as we have to take age and potential into account. He could well improve.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 16, 2022 12:41:56 GMT
Incidentally though tachyon , are the stats in the OP correct? From what I checked we were about 8th in the xG table. Norwich (nowhere on that infographic) were top, and Bristol City (5th here) were rock bottom!
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 16, 2022 12:43:22 GMT
Incidentally though tachyon , are the stats in the OP correct? From what I checked we were about 8th in the xG table. Norwich (nowhere on that infographic) were top, and Bristol City (5th here) were rock bottom! Different sources calculate xG differently. If you look at my assessment post you'll see I include two different sources with two different values. One in text form with source provided and another with graphics and source provided.
|
|
|
Post by stokeyank on Aug 16, 2022 12:51:47 GMT
We do seem to be brighter, although I think the bulk of that would have come from the Blackpool game. We were hammered on XG at Millwall, and would even have lost in XG terms at Huddersfield without the penalty, which takes some doing with how that game went. Opta have us 10th from open play XG so far (and 3rd in set-piece XG, which will include about 0.80 for the missed pen I think) It's a step-up from last season, but it's such a small sample size, hard to really glean anything from it yet. We've conceded the 7th most XG from open play, and 8th most from set-pieces. And still managed to concede a lot more goals than we should have from those chances, which Tachyon suggested was down to goalkeeping underperformance - which is a recurring theme Which really shows what a load of shite this xG stat nonsense is. No keeper in the world saves any of the goals we have conceded this season, apart from maybe Huddersfields 1st but that was difficult. Fair but that first Huddersfield one was not difficult. Basically have an average reaction time and put your hands up. I was annoyed it was not saved when they scored it. Went back and watched the replay a few time to really see if it was that bad and it was. It was a stop every keeper in league football should make routinely. Now our defense has fucked up pretty much all the rest but I still don't trust Bursik.
|
|
|
Post by Orbs on Aug 16, 2022 13:51:50 GMT
I’ve got an expected shags (XS) of 4.2 but usually end up with an XS of 0.8.
It’s all claptrap.
|
|
|
Post by marylandstoke on Aug 16, 2022 13:59:17 GMT
Lies
Damn lies
Statistics
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Aug 16, 2022 14:56:11 GMT
Incidentally though tachyon , are the stats in the OP correct? From what I checked we were about 8th in the xG table. Norwich (nowhere on that infographic) were top, and Bristol City (5th here) were rock bottom! Single game or single shot xG provide a more informed version of what happens in a match. "Brown should score that" is replaced by " a shot from that location is scored 18% of the time". Less opportunity for ill informed bias/opinion to prevail. Single shot xG does vary (all models are slightly different), but in the aggregate over more games you do get a general consensus. (despite the marketing wars). We regularly use xG for a couple of bits of content. Attachment DeletedTop two graphics are Stoke's 10 game rolling xG, first under Rowett & Jones, then under MO'N. Blue areas are when we've created more xG than we've allowed (good process-better results are likely to follow, although that's not a given. "Randomness" plays a huge part in single games). Orange is where we've allowed more than we've created (poor process-results are likely to be poor). When the blue line dips, we've been having trouble creating chances. When the orange line rises, we've struggled to prevent chances. Bottom graphic is an alternative league table. I've simulated every goal attempt, in every game so far, 10,000 times, added up the points in each simulation to calculate the most likely current position, based on what's happened in each game. Stoke's most likely current position is 7th, the xG for (inc pens) & xG against are listed. The fcst position is where we are most likely to finish, based on the actual points we've won so far and how well I think we will do in the remaining matches (based on the rolling xG plots for us and the other 23 teams). That's 11th if it's difficult to read. xG is a very flexible, unbiased, non narrative driven tool that virtually every team uses.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Aug 16, 2022 15:00:23 GMT
I’ve got an expected shags (XS) of 4.2 but usually end up with an XS of 0.8. It’s all claptrap. Got the double up! The chances of that in consecutive post is nearly 100/1 :-)
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Aug 16, 2022 15:06:38 GMT
We do seem to be brighter, although I think the bulk of that would have come from the Blackpool game. We were hammered on XG at Millwall, and would even have lost in XG terms at Huddersfield without the penalty, which takes some doing with how that game went. Opta have us 10th from open play XG so far (and 3rd in set-piece XG, which will include about 0.80 for the missed pen I think) It's a step-up from last season, but it's such a small sample size, hard to really glean anything from it yet. We've conceded the 7th most XG from open play, and 8th most from set-pieces. And still managed to concede a lot more goals than we should have from those chances, which Tachyon suggested was down to goalkeeping underperformance - which is a recurring theme Bursik isn't ready. He needs loaning out to learn his craft on another club's time. It's too critical a position to gamble with as the stats show. Under Jones we had good xg but we also had Butland fucking up left, right and centre. Having a keeper the defence doesn't trust also piles pressure on them as they know a mistake is going to lead to a goal. That's unfair on Butland - it was other players too. There was a period when almost every individual mistake made (even in the middle of the pitch) led to a goal conceded. I also thought Butland was one of our better players in that first Championship season.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 16, 2022 15:14:20 GMT
Incidentally though tachyon , are the stats in the OP correct? From what I checked we were about 8th in the xG table. Norwich (nowhere on that infographic) were top, and Bristol City (5th here) were rock bottom! Single game or single shot xG provide a more informed version of what happens in a match. "Brown should score that" is replaced by " a shot from that location is scored 18% of the time". Less opportunity for ill informed bias/opinion to prevail. Single shot xG does vary (all models are slightly different), but in the aggregate over more games you do get a general consensus. (despite the marketing wars). We regularly use xG for a couple of bits of content. View AttachmentTop two graphics are Stoke's 10 game rolling xG, first under Rowett & Jones, then under MO'N. Blue areas are when we've created more xG than we've allowed (good process-better results are likely to follow, although that's not a given. "Randomness" plays a huge part in single games). Orange is where we've allowed more than we've created (poor process-results are likely to be poor). When the blue line dips, we've been having trouble creating chances. When the orange line rises, we've struggled to prevent chances. Bottom graphic is an alternative league table. I've simulated every goal attempt, in every game so far, 10,000 times, added up the points in each simulation to calculate the most likely current position, based on what's happened in each game. Stoke's most likely current position is 7th, the xG for (inc pens) & xG against are listed. The fcst position is where we are most likely to finish, based on the actual points we've won so far and how well I think we will do in the remaining matches (based on the rolling xG plots for us and the other 23 teams). That's 11th if it's difficult to read. xG is a very flexible, unbiased, non narrative driven tool that virtually every team uses. Brilliant, thanks. I have a few questions really but I’ll restrain myself to one for now, about your fcst value… you say that’s “based on the rolling xg” - Watford have performed poorly so far this season (exp 20th) *and* presumably their recent rolling xg can’t be very good considering they finished 2nd-bottom of the Prem last year… so how do they end up forecast as champions? Doesn’t seem to make any sense.. or are the values weighted differently for the Prem or something
|
|
|
Post by marylandstoke on Aug 16, 2022 15:29:01 GMT
I’ve got an expected shags (XS) of 4.2 but usually end up with an XS of 0.8. It’s all claptrap. Got the double up! The chances of that in consecutive post is nearly 100/1 :-) And that, my friend, is exactly why, when it comes to the statisticals, you are the crucial ligaments of the bees knees.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Aug 16, 2022 15:38:39 GMT
Single game or single shot xG provide a more informed version of what happens in a match. "Brown should score that" is replaced by " a shot from that location is scored 18% of the time". Less opportunity for ill informed bias/opinion to prevail. Single shot xG does vary (all models are slightly different), but in the aggregate over more games you do get a general consensus. (despite the marketing wars). We regularly use xG for a couple of bits of content. View AttachmentTop two graphics are Stoke's 10 game rolling xG, first under Rowett & Jones, then under MO'N. Blue areas are when we've created more xG than we've allowed (good process-better results are likely to follow, although that's not a given. "Randomness" plays a huge part in single games). Orange is where we've allowed more than we've created (poor process-results are likely to be poor). When the blue line dips, we've been having trouble creating chances. When the orange line rises, we've struggled to prevent chances. Bottom graphic is an alternative league table. I've simulated every goal attempt, in every game so far, 10,000 times, added up the points in each simulation to calculate the most likely current position, based on what's happened in each game. Stoke's most likely current position is 7th, the xG for (inc pens) & xG against are listed. The fcst position is where we are most likely to finish, based on the actual points we've won so far and how well I think we will do in the remaining matches (based on the rolling xG plots for us and the other 23 teams). That's 11th if it's difficult to read. xG is a very flexible, unbiased, non narrative driven tool that virtually every team uses. Brilliant, thanks. I have a few questions really but I’ll restrain myself to one for now, about your fcst value… you say that’s “based on the rolling xg” - Watford have performed poorly so far this season (exp 20th) *and* presumably their recent rolling xg can’t be very good considering they finished 2nd-bottom of the Prem last year… so how do they end up forecast as champions? Doesn’t seem to make any sense.. or are the values weighted differently for the Prem or something Yes, there's an exchange rate based on the historical performance of relegated sides from the PL in their first season in the Champ. xG created increases, xG allowed decreases. Can't remember off hand what I'm currently using. Here's Watford & Norwich, last season in the PL. Plotted to the same scale, so the former were quite a bit better than the latter. Attachment DeletedFor teams like Burnley who have their unique brand of financial hell, I take the underlying numbers, but also take a consensus from our traders and look at the games as they are played to see if there's any systematic error in out rating.
|
|