|
Post by iamstokie on Aug 16, 2022 15:42:50 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 View AttachmentAnother totally irrelevant bullshit stat , the only goals that matter are the ones on the scoresheet at the end of the game
|
|
|
Post by Orbs on Aug 16, 2022 17:03:29 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 :-) The chances of this bullshit having any significance whatsoever ever is 200/1 :-)
|
|
|
Post by hardcastle on Aug 16, 2022 17:14:16 GMT
There's some logic to Tachyon's stats but, really, are three or four games enough to go on?
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Aug 16, 2022 17:30:46 GMT
There's some logic to Tachyon's stats but, really, are three or four games enough to go on? Sample size is a factor. What the likelihood x number of goals are allowed from 10 on target shots having a individual post shot xG values of a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j. If that likelihood is very small, the likelihood of your subject being a below average keeper is quite high. in isolation, it sets alarm bells ringing and you start to look at other things the data might tell you, such as positioning, technique etc. If you have data from previous seasons, you use that as well. Team data is weighted from the previous 46 games, so a couple of matches just moves the baseline numbers slightly.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Aug 16, 2022 18:53:40 GMT
Wasn't it decent under Jones at first? This. Jones signed Vokes and then wheeled out the xG card. We now know we’d need an xG of 20 per game for our strikers to score one in a game, it can highlight bad management as much as bad luck.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 16, 2022 18:57:20 GMT
Wasn't it decent under Jones at first? Nope
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 16, 2022 18:58:29 GMT
Wasn't it decent under Jones at first? This. Jones signed Vokes and then wheeled out the xG card. We now know we’d need an xG of 20 per game for our strikers to score one in a game, it can highlight bad management as much as bad luck. But that's not true though. The xG v xGA has already been provided in the thread which shows the difference between Rowett and Jones, and O'Neill. Ones is mostly yellow, the others is mostly blue. See graph in below post 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.
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Aug 16, 2022 20:03:57 GMT
Ahh the old expected goals chestnut, a stat designed to make teams that aren't picking up points feel like they have been hard done by.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 16, 2022 20:17:01 GMT
Ahh the old expected goals chestnut, a stat designed to make teams that aren't picking up points feel like they have been hard done by. I’m somewhat stats-sceptical but there’s no logic at all to this is there? Some teams score less than their xG, some score more and some score about the same. It makes no difference at all where they are in the table.
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Aug 16, 2022 20:18:30 GMT
I like these stats breakdowns from Tachyon.
But ultimately I guess all we really want to know is, are we wank, or a plethora of wank?
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Aug 16, 2022 21:37:21 GMT
This. Jones signed Vokes and then wheeled out the xG card. We now know we’d need an xG of 20 per game for our strikers to score one in a game, it can highlight bad management as much as bad luck. But that's not true though. The xG v xGA has already been provided in the thread which shows the difference between Rowett and Jones, and O'Neill. Ones is mostly yellow, the others is mostly blue. See graph in below post 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. I might be reading this wrong but there’s lots of blue at the beginning with NJ which indicates we had a higher xG than goals scored? Jones then used this to say we were going in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 16, 2022 21:39:07 GMT
But that's not true though. The xG v xGA has already been provided in the thread which shows the difference between Rowett and Jones, and O'Neill. Ones is mostly yellow, the others is mostly blue. See graph in below post I might be reading this wrong but there’s lots of blue at the beginning with NJ which indicates we had a higher xG than goals scored? Jones then used this to say we were going in the right direction. I think that blue bit was Gary Rowett at the start. Nathan's is mostly yellow bar one small period near the end.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Aug 16, 2022 21:57:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 17, 2022 1:32:02 GMT
That would make sense because the increase in blue is at the end of the graph which suggests just before NJ was sacked. So that would add up with the articles you've provided. But until then it was largely the other way round for alot of his tenure. And I guess you could argue that the xG was correct because not long after O'Neill came in we began to get results
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Aug 17, 2022 7:37:18 GMT
Ahh the old expected goals chestnut, a stat designed to make teams that aren't picking up points feel like they have been hard done by. The 30 PL teams since 2014/15 who most over-performed their xG in the first half of a season averaged a 27% over-performance. The 30 Pl teams since 2014/15 who most under-performed their xG in the first half of a season averaged a 24% under-performance. Imagine each side's surprise when the combined over-performance and under-performance in the second half of the season for the respective groups was just +1% and -1.1%. Guess their good luck/bad luck largely ran out. Pretty smart chestnut :-)
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Aug 17, 2022 8:46:53 GMT
Wasn't it decent under Jones at first? At first? MON has managed about 140 matches for us.
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Aug 17, 2022 8:48:51 GMT
It's amusing how much doom and gloom there is on here saying we don't create any chances and there we are with only one team creating more chances than us.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 17, 2022 8:55:18 GMT
Wasn't it decent under Jones at first? At first? MON has managed about 140 matches for us. I know, but I was asking about Jones.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Aug 17, 2022 9:04:02 GMT
For those interested in the NJ tenure here's a breakdown of just his league games. Attachment DeletedFirst graphic highlights his final ten games, with his entire Stoke career in the mini graphic towards the bottom. The second plot highlights what George was talking about in the NTT20 pod. Stoke wern't terrible, we were so-so, but the results were brutal, often single goal defeats. Final graphic our xG differential was -0.9, but our actual goal difference was -18. That's just the footballing gods having a laugh, big time.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Aug 17, 2022 9:06:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Orbs on Aug 17, 2022 23:25:40 GMT
For those interested in the NJ tenure here's a breakdown of just his league games. View AttachmentFirst graphic highlights his final ten games, with his entire Stoke career in the mini graphic towards the bottom. The second plot highlights what George was talking about in the NTT20 pod. Stoke wern't terrible, we were so-so, but the results were brutal, often single goal defeats. Final graphic our xG differential was -0.9, but our actual goal difference was -18. That's just the footballing gods having a laugh, big time. Please tell me how we did on xG tonight…
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 17, 2022 23:30:37 GMT
2 more than expected 😂😂
|
|
|
Post by LphPotter on Aug 17, 2022 23:44:12 GMT
Hardly.. shit performance but both goals were very good chances and Bakers almost open goal is another that should be quite high.
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Aug 17, 2022 23:44:12 GMT
Please tell me how we did on xG tonight… 1.31 apparently to their 1.79. Much more even that the general play would suggest. Which I think may be a weakness of expected goals. As a metric only of quality of chances it doesn’t give the full picture. Given that we were second best everywhere on the pitch, the quality of the few chances we created was surprisingly good. Middlesbrough bossed the game but didn’t create that many clear sights of goal. Given how dominant Boro were in the second half I would have expected them to create better quality chances. But I suppose at that point we’d get into the realm of expected chances, which starts to get a bit silly.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 17, 2022 23:45:21 GMT
Hardly.. shit performance but both goals were very good chances and Bakers almost open goal is another that should be quite high. Nevermind 😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 18, 2022 16:14:39 GMT
Does anyone have reliable xG stats from last night? I seem to be a bit crap at finding them
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Aug 18, 2022 16:17:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Aug 18, 2022 17:24:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Aug 18, 2022 17:27:04 GMT
It did feel like that in the second half! But just checked and it seems to be the 4th highest total a Championship side has given up so far this season.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 18, 2022 17:38:12 GMT
xG by minute. I know alot of people think xG is just a load of shit. But I think that image actually gives a good representation of just how the game played out. Up until our goal it was all Boro. Then the rest of first half was a bit more even and on chances 1-1 was probably a fair score. First 20 minutes of second half was all Boro and they capped it off with their goal. At 70 minutes we changed to a 3 up front and the teams cancelled eachother out. In the last 10 minutes (including stoppage time) we then had a few decent chances and got an equaliser. They then reply with their own chance and its game over. That xG line also highlights just how poor the second half was until those last 10 mins. We literally offered nothing. But it does coorelate with the substitutions too in the sense that once we put 3 up top and forced them to go long, they didn't threaten us, we just weren't threatening them either. Duncan Wattmore coming off had an influence too of course.
|
|