|
Post by GrahamHyde on Sept 17, 2022 16:14:22 GMT
Does that mean we were lucky not to lose?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 17, 2022 16:22:02 GMT
Does that mean we were lucky not to lose? If you're talking about the xG, it just means they were more likely to score than us and should have scored a goal based on the chances they created. Whereas through our chances we were only expected to score 0.45 goals. It was the game we were third most likely to lose based on expected goals after Boro and Reading this season.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Sept 18, 2022 8:51:03 GMT
Does that mean we were lucky not to lose? One way to look at the xG for a single match is with a simulated xG timeline that estimates how likley it is a side is winning, losing or drawing at any time in the game based on the quality of chances that they have faced or created. Here's yesterday. Attachment DeletedQPR created all the chances in the first half hour, but they weren't high quality ones, so it most likley that the game is still all square at 0-0 (75%). Stoke had their best spell from 30th min to the interval. Again not high quality chances, so although there is a possibility that either side leads, a stalemate is still the most likely current outcome (60%). QPR have the game's best chance (Dunne) on 53 mins (xG 0.37). Along with everything that has gone before, it's a 50/50 chance QPR now lead, 35% it's still level and a 15% chance Stoke have taken and held a lead, even though they been out chanced. QPR have another decent scoring opportunity on the 76th min, Chair (0.28 xG), that boosts their chance of leading to around 65% and drops Stoke to 10%. After that the game meanders to the end with a couple of low quality chances per side and the final probabilistic outcome is 65% a QPR win, 25% a draw and 10% a Stoke win. In terms of expected points, QPR would average a return of 2.2 points from that performance and Stoke would average 0.56. We got outplayed, but nicked a point (the second most likely outcome). On another, more likely day we lose and on another, much less likely day, we take all three points.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 19, 2022 20:18:46 GMT
Added the minute by minute graph for QPR
|
|
|
Post by a on Sept 24, 2022 8:06:20 GMT
Does that mean we were lucky not to lose? One way to look at the xG for a single match is with a simulated xG timeline that estimates how likley it is a side is winning, losing or drawing at any time in the game based on the quality of chances that they have faced or created. Here's yesterday. View AttachmentQPR created all the chances in the first half hour, but they weren't high quality ones, so it most likley that the game is still all square at 0-0 (75%). Stoke had their best spell from 30th min to the interval. Again not high quality chances, so although there is a possibility that either side leads, a stalemate is still the most likely current outcome (60%). QPR have the game's best chance (Dunne) on 53 mins (xG 0.37). Along with everything that has gone before, it's a 50/50 chance QPR now lead, 35% it's still level and a 15% chance Stoke have taken and held a lead, even though they been out chanced. QPR have another decent scoring opportunity on the 76th min, Chair (0.28 xG), that boosts their chance of leading to around 65% and drops Stoke to 10%. After that the game meanders to the end with a couple of low quality chances per side and the final probabilistic outcome is 65% a QPR win, 25% a draw and 10% a Stoke win. In terms of expected points, QPR would average a return of 2.2 points from that performance and Stoke would average 0.56. We got outplayed, but nicked a point (the second most likely outcome). On another, more likely day we lose and on another, much less likely day, we take all three points. Looking at that it shows how much we need to get fitter to see out games.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 2, 2022 13:42:50 GMT
Updated after todays result.
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Oct 2, 2022 15:55:19 GMT
Attacking Effectiveness
Great effort this mate but I need to load it on my laptop cause I can’t see it. Can’t help thinking a shit ometer might be a simple method of highlighting where we are
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 2, 2022 15:57:09 GMT
Attacking Effectiveness
Great effort this mate but I need to load it on my laptop cause I can’t see it. Can’t help thinking a shit omelet might be a simple method of highlighting where we are This wasn't created by me. I'm just updating the thread with stuff I see from other sites. Plus that's a few weeks out of date now too. Some great stuff gets posted here which is where I take alot of it from - experimental361.com/category/divisions/championship/
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 6, 2022 19:29:33 GMT
Updated
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 6, 2022 20:51:09 GMT
Michael O'Neill Final 5 (League Games) v Alex Neil First 6 (League Games) Manager | Average Result | Average Expected Result | Points Per Game | Expected Points Per Game | Average Shots (On Target) | Average Shots Against (On Target) | Average Possession | Average Passes (Stoke v Opposition) | Pass Accuracy (Stoke v Opposition) | Michael O'Neill | 1 v 1.6 | 1.48 v 1.44 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 13.2 (4.2) | 12 (3.2) | 49.4 - 50.6 | 408 - 373 | 75.6 - 71.4 | Alex Neil | 1 v 1.3 | 1.09 v 1.64 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 13.3 (3.5) | 14.2 (5.2) | 45.3 - 54.7 | 356 - 452 | 71 - 78.5 |
Some observations: - We are conceding 0.3 goals less per game on average under Alex Neil. However we are currently overperforming and expected to concede 0.34 more goals per game than we currently are. - We are scoring the same amount of goals on average under Alex Neil. However we are expected to score 26% less goals per game than we did under Michael O'Neill.- Under Michael O'Neill we were picking up 43% less points than expected. We are now picking up as many points as expected and 25% more points per game under Alex Neil.- We have more shots per game under Alex Neil but less on target. We are more clinical with our shots on target scoring a goal for every 3.5 shots on target compared to 4.2 before. However the average quality of chance which we create is 26% worse.
- We have less possession per game. - We aren't as strong in possession. Previously we attempted 35 more passes per game than the opposition, now the opposition attempt 96 more. We are also less accurate with our attempted passes while our opponents have improved.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 6, 2022 21:00:58 GMT
Michael O'Neill Final 5 (League Games) v Alex Neil First 6 (League Games) Manager | Average Result | Average Expected Result | Points Per Game | Expected Points Per Game | Average Shots (On Target) | Average Shots Against (On Target) | Average Possession | Average Passes (Stoke v Opposition) | Pass Accuracy (Stoke v Opposition) | Michael O'Neill | 1 v 1.6 | 1.48 v 1.44 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 13.2 (4.2) | 12 (3.2) | 49.4 - 50.6 | 408 - 373 | 75.6 - 71.4 | Alex Neil | 1 v 1.3 | 1.09 v 1.64 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 13.3 (3.5) | 14.2 (5.2) | 45.3 - 54.7 | 356 - 452 | 71 - 78.5 |
Some observations: - We are conceding 0.3 goals less per game on average under Alex Neil. However we are currently overperforming and expected to concede 0.34 more goals per game than we currently are. - We are scoring the same amount of goals on average under Alex Neil. However we are expected to score 26% less goals per game than we did under Michael O'Neill.- Under Michael O'Neill we were picking up 43% less points than expected. We are now picking up as many points as expected and 25% more points per game under Alex Neil.- We have more shots per game under Alex Neil but less on target. We are more clinical with our shots on target scoring a goal for every 3.5 shots on target compared to 4.2 before. However the average quality of chance which we create is 26% worse.
- We have less possession per game. - We aren't as strong in possession. Previously we attempted 35 more passes per game than the opposition, now the opposition attempt 96 more. We are also less accurate with our attempted passes while our opponents have improved. If you add them together it's a pretty dismal 11 matches. Fewer than 1 point per game between them which is relegation form. Lucky Dean Holden took charge for the missing match which was the away win at Blackburn. Maybe we should just give the blasted job to Deano ?!
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 6, 2022 21:47:27 GMT
Michael O'Neill Final 5 (League Games) v Alex Neil First 6 (League Games) Manager | Average Result | Average Expected Result | Points Per Game | Expected Points Per Game | Average Shots (On Target) | Average Shots Against (On Target) | Average Possession | Average Passes (Stoke v Opposition) | Pass Accuracy (Stoke v Opposition) | Michael O'Neill | 1 v 1.6 | 1.48 v 1.44 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 13.2 (4.2) | 12 (3.2) | 49.4 - 50.6 | 408 - 373 | 75.6 - 71.4 | Alex Neil | 1 v 1.3 | 1.09 v 1.64 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 13.3 (3.5) | 14.2 (5.2) | 45.3 - 54.7 | 356 - 452 | 71 - 78.5 |
Some observations: - We are conceding 0.3 goals less per game on average under Alex Neil. However we are currently overperforming and expected to concede 0.34 more goals per game than we currently are. - We are scoring the same amount of goals on average under Alex Neil. However we are expected to score 26% less goals per game than we did under Michael O'Neill.- Under Michael O'Neill we were picking up 43% less points than expected. We are now picking up as many points as expected and 25% more points per game under Alex Neil.- We have more shots per game under Alex Neil but less on target. We are more clinical with our shots on target scoring a goal for every 3.5 shots on target compared to 4.2 before. However the average quality of chance which we create is 26% worse.
- We have less possession per game. - We aren't as strong in possession. Previously we attempted 35 more passes per game than the opposition, now the opposition attempt 96 more. We are also less accurate with our attempted passes while our opponents have improved. If you add them together it's a pretty dismal 11 matches. Fewer than 1 point per game between them which is relegation form. Lucky Rory Delap took charge for the missing match which was the away win at Blackburn. Maybe we should just give the blasted job to Rory?! Dean Holden was in charge…..
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 6, 2022 22:10:00 GMT
If you add them together it's a pretty dismal 11 matches. Fewer than 1 point per game between them which is relegation form. Lucky Rory Delap took charge for the missing match which was the away win at Blackburn. Maybe we should just give the blasted job to Rory?! Dean Holden was in charge….. Deano, of course! Edited accordingly, same point. Holden could not have done any worse, in fact I could not have done any worse myself. Truth is a blind man on a galloping horse could not have done any worse than these two!
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Oct 10, 2022 5:58:21 GMT
I’ve seen that the source that Gawa uses for the XG timelines has Liam Delap as having 0.6 XG from Saturday.
Surely we can’t say that a professional footballer would be expected to miss an open goal from eight yards out 40% of the time?
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Oct 10, 2022 9:34:48 GMT
I’ve seen that the source that Gawa uses for the XG timelines has Liam Delap as having 0.6 XG from Saturday. Surely we can’t say that a professional footballer would be expected to miss an open goal from eight yards out 40% of the time? he had a 50% ratio himself on Saturday tbf, missed one & scored one.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 10, 2022 9:52:04 GMT
I’ve seen that the source that Gawa uses for the XG timelines has Liam Delap as having 0.6 XG from Saturday. Surely we can’t say that a professional footballer would be expected to miss an open goal from eight yards out 40% of the time? Some of them don't account for it being an open goal I think, so some of the 40% missed would be saves. And they usually(?) include type of pass but it might also include cases where the winger smashes it across the box at a million mph. Gotta think that chance was worth more than 0.6 xG really. Need tachyon for this.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 10, 2022 9:52:44 GMT
I’ve seen that the source that Gawa uses for the XG timelines has Liam Delap as having 0.6 XG from Saturday. Surely we can’t say that a professional footballer would be expected to miss an open goal from eight yards out 40% of the time? he had a 50% ratio himself on Saturday tbf, missed one & scored one. Didn't take a shot with the first one so doesn't count for xG. Clever lad hacked the system
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 10, 2022 9:56:40 GMT
Michael O'Neill Final 5 (League Games) v Alex Neil First 6 (League Games) Manager | Average Result | Average Expected Result | Points Per Game | Expected Points Per Game | Average Shots (On Target) | Average Shots Against (On Target) | Average Possession | Average Passes (Stoke v Opposition) | Pass Accuracy (Stoke v Opposition) | Michael O'Neill | 1 v 1.6 | 1.48 v 1.44 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 13.2 (4.2) | 12 (3.2) | 49.4 - 50.6 | 408 - 373 | 75.6 - 71.4 | Alex Neil | 1 v 1.3 | 1.09 v 1.64 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 13.3 (3.5) | 14.2 (5.2) | 45.3 - 54.7 | 356 - 452 | 71 - 78.5 |
Some observations: - We are conceding 0.3 goals less per game on average under Alex Neil. However we are currently overperforming and expected to concede 0.34 more goals per game than we currently are. - We are scoring the same amount of goals on average under Alex Neil. However we are expected to score 26% less goals per game than we did under Michael O'Neill.- Under Michael O'Neill we were picking up 43% less points than expected. We are now picking up as many points as expected and 25% more points per game under Alex Neil.- We have more shots per game under Alex Neil but less on target. We are more clinical with our shots on target scoring a goal for every 3.5 shots on target compared to 4.2 before. However the average quality of chance which we create is 26% worse.
- We have less possession per game. - We aren't as strong in possession. Previously we attempted 35 more passes per game than the opposition, now the opposition attempt 96 more. We are also less accurate with our attempted passes while our opponents have improved. Doesn't account for strength of opposition right? I missed Watford game but have generally enjoyed the Neil games more, passing along the back 3 makes me yawn. I've said things have looked luckier for AN though. It definitely felt we didn't get much fortune under MON and I have some sympathy for him there. If he was in charge the goal line clearance and post pinball shots would probably have gone in for Sheffield.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Oct 10, 2022 10:54:13 GMT
Michael O'Neill Final 5 (League Games) v Alex Neil First 6 (League Games) Manager | Average Result | Average Expected Result | Points Per Game | Expected Points Per Game | Average Shots (On Target) | Average Shots Against (On Target) | Average Possession | Average Passes (Stoke v Opposition) | Pass Accuracy (Stoke v Opposition) | Michael O'Neill | 1 v 1.6 | 1.48 v 1.44 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 13.2 (4.2) | 12 (3.2) | 49.4 - 50.6 | 408 - 373 | 75.6 - 71.4 | Alex Neil | 1 v 1.3 | 1.09 v 1.64 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 13.3 (3.5) | 14.2 (5.2) | 45.3 - 54.7 | 356 - 452 | 71 - 78.5 |
Some observations: - We are conceding 0.3 goals less per game on average under Alex Neil. However we are currently overperforming and expected to concede 0.34 more goals per game than we currently are. - We are scoring the same amount of goals on average under Alex Neil. However we are expected to score 26% less goals per game than we did under Michael O'Neill.- Under Michael O'Neill we were picking up 43% less points than expected. We are now picking up as many points as expected and 25% more points per game under Alex Neil.- We have more shots per game under Alex Neil but less on target. We are more clinical with our shots on target scoring a goal for every 3.5 shots on target compared to 4.2 before. However the average quality of chance which we create is 26% worse.
- We have less possession per game. - We aren't as strong in possession. Previously we attempted 35 more passes per game than the opposition, now the opposition attempt 96 more. We are also less accurate with our attempted passes while our opponents have improved. There is a limited point in comparing stats over such a short period. 6 games where one outlier result will have a huge effect. If you want to go to that level of detail, it would be more informative to use Forest plots for these measures.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 10, 2022 11:08:51 GMT
Michael O'Neill Final 5 (League Games) v Alex Neil First 6 (League Games) Manager | Average Result | Average Expected Result | Points Per Game | Expected Points Per Game | Average Shots (On Target) | Average Shots Against (On Target) | Average Possession | Average Passes (Stoke v Opposition) | Pass Accuracy (Stoke v Opposition) | Michael O'Neill | 1 v 1.6 | 1.48 v 1.44 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 13.2 (4.2) | 12 (3.2) | 49.4 - 50.6 | 408 - 373 | 75.6 - 71.4 | Alex Neil | 1 v 1.3 | 1.09 v 1.64 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 13.3 (3.5) | 14.2 (5.2) | 45.3 - 54.7 | 356 - 452 | 71 - 78.5 |
Some observations: - We are conceding 0.3 goals less per game on average under Alex Neil. However we are currently overperforming and expected to concede 0.34 more goals per game than we currently are. - We are scoring the same amount of goals on average under Alex Neil. However we are expected to score 26% less goals per game than we did under Michael O'Neill.- Under Michael O'Neill we were picking up 43% less points than expected. We are now picking up as many points as expected and 25% more points per game under Alex Neil.- We have more shots per game under Alex Neil but less on target. We are more clinical with our shots on target scoring a goal for every 3.5 shots on target compared to 4.2 before. However the average quality of chance which we create is 26% worse.
- We have less possession per game. - We aren't as strong in possession. Previously we attempted 35 more passes per game than the opposition, now the opposition attempt 96 more. We are also less accurate with our attempted passes while our opponents have improved. There is a limited point in comparing stats over such a short period. 6 games where one outlier result will have a huge effect. If you want to go to that level of detail, it would be more informative to use Forest plots for these measures. It’s much too small a sample to make any meaningful conclusions with so many variables.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 10, 2022 11:57:15 GMT
Michael O'Neill Final 5 (League Games) v Alex Neil First 6 (League Games) Manager | Average Result | Average Expected Result | Points Per Game | Expected Points Per Game | Average Shots (On Target) | Average Shots Against (On Target) | Average Possession | Average Passes (Stoke v Opposition) | Pass Accuracy (Stoke v Opposition) | Michael O'Neill | 1 v 1.6 | 1.48 v 1.44 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 13.2 (4.2) | 12 (3.2) | 49.4 - 50.6 | 408 - 373 | 75.6 - 71.4 | Alex Neil | 1 v 1.3 | 1.09 v 1.64 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 13.3 (3.5) | 14.2 (5.2) | 45.3 - 54.7 | 356 - 452 | 71 - 78.5 |
Some observations: - We are conceding 0.3 goals less per game on average under Alex Neil. However we are currently overperforming and expected to concede 0.34 more goals per game than we currently are. - We are scoring the same amount of goals on average under Alex Neil. However we are expected to score 26% less goals per game than we did under Michael O'Neill.- Under Michael O'Neill we were picking up 43% less points than expected. We are now picking up as many points as expected and 25% more points per game under Alex Neil.- We have more shots per game under Alex Neil but less on target. We are more clinical with our shots on target scoring a goal for every 3.5 shots on target compared to 4.2 before. However the average quality of chance which we create is 26% worse.
- We have less possession per game. - We aren't as strong in possession. Previously we attempted 35 more passes per game than the opposition, now the opposition attempt 96 more. We are also less accurate with our attempted passes while our opponents have improved. There is a limited point in comparing stats over such a short period. 6 games where one outlier result will have a huge effect. If you want to go to that level of detail, it would be more informative to use Forest plots for these measures. These aren't meant to be particularly meaningful stats. Was just a bit of fun. Due to the small sample size though, I'm sure the Sheffield stats would make a big difference to those averages. The most recent time limes have been released this morning so when I'm next at my laptop I'll update the rest. I was thinking it could be fun to go through the player rating thread for each match and try and record the average scores. And then show the players by average rating so far this season.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 11, 2022 20:45:48 GMT
Expected Goals League Table
Expected Goals Table 9th October 2022
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 11, 2022 20:47:02 GMT
OP Updated too
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Oct 12, 2022 6:17:44 GMT
I’m fully on board with the concept of Expected goals but really have to doubt the application when Wilmot is given a higher XG than Delap for the Sheff Utd game.
|
|
|
Post by SuperRickyFuller on Oct 12, 2022 6:39:00 GMT
I’m fully on board with the concept of Expected goals but really have to doubt the application when Wilmot is given a higher XG than Delap for the Sheff Utd game. Definitely one for tachyon
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Oct 12, 2022 8:25:20 GMT
I’m fully on board with the concept of Expected goals but really have to doubt the application when Wilmot is given a higher XG than Delap for the Sheff Utd game. Both were big chances, but Delap's had a bigger pre shot xG than Wilmot, not smaller. Attachment DeletedBarring penalties, LD's goal is the biggest chance we've created all season. Chances from crosses have alot of outcome bias associated with their xG. When everything goes right, (pace of cross, player/keeper positioning, contact etc) they look easy. Two minutes previously, LD had a near post chance where he was pressured & he failed to register an xG by a whisker. We try not to overfit to the specific chance because that is generally more predictive. Include post shot data (placement, power, specific opposition pressure etc, which does overfit to the actual chance) and Delap's so called xG2 rises to around 0.95. The post shot xG of all three goals was 0.65 (Wilmot), 0.57 (Jags) and 0.95 (Delap).
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Oct 12, 2022 8:43:27 GMT
Expected Goals League Table
Expected Goals Table 9th October 2022 Is the simple conclusion here that WBA have been unlucky? Or terrible at finishing?
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Oct 12, 2022 8:52:25 GMT
I’m fully on board with the concept of Expected goals but really have to doubt the application when Wilmot is given a higher XG than Delap for the Sheff Utd game. Both were big chances, but Delap's had a bigger pre shot xG than Wilmot, not smaller. View AttachmentBarring penalties, LD's goal is the biggest chance we've created all season. Chances from crosses have alot of outcome bias associated with their xG. When everything goes right, (pace of cross, player/keeper positioning, contact etc) they look easy. Two minutes previously, LD had a near post chance where he was pressured & he failed to register an xG by a whisker. We try not to overfit to the specific chance because that is generally more predictive. Include post shot data (placement, power, specific opposition pressure etc, which does overfit to the actual chance) and Delap's so called xG2 rises to around 0.95. The post shot xG of all three goals was 0.65 (Wilmot), 0.57 (Jags) and 0.95 (Delap). What do you mean by failed to register an xG. Does that chance not get included in any metrics then?
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Oct 12, 2022 9:21:10 GMT
Is the simple conclusion here that WBA have been unlucky? Or terrible at finishing? 1) Playing from behind in 9? games. Opposition may drop into a low block, allowing WBA to rack up lots of low quality chances. So in short game state has played a part. The good thing from WBA pov is they are creating some chances, they aren't totally terrible and conceding first isn't a persistent trait. Here's their xG shot map. They are taking a lot of speculative, small xG attempts from out wide and outside the box. 2) Post shot xG would tell you if they've been finishing poorly (haven't looked) or if opposition keepers are playing out of their skin. (Either tend to be transient, rather than repeatable).
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Oct 12, 2022 9:25:18 GMT
Both were big chances, but Delap's had a bigger pre shot xG than Wilmot, not smaller. View AttachmentBarring penalties, LD's goal is the biggest chance we've created all season. Chances from crosses have alot of outcome bias associated with their xG. When everything goes right, (pace of cross, player/keeper positioning, contact etc) they look easy. Two minutes previously, LD had a near post chance where he was pressured & he failed to register an xG by a whisker. We try not to overfit to the specific chance because that is generally more predictive. Include post shot data (placement, power, specific opposition pressure etc, which does overfit to the actual chance) and Delap's so called xG2 rises to around 0.95. The post shot xG of all three goals was 0.65 (Wilmot), 0.57 (Jags) and 0.95 (Delap). What do you mean by failed to register an xG. Does that chance not get included in any metrics then? His goal registers as an xG. The near post cross just prior to his goal doesn't because he didn't get a touch. If he had it would probably have been a 0.4 ish xG. The non xG chance does register on a non shot xG model for the player who crossed it (can't remember who), both for carrying the ball into a dangerous area and crossing it into one. That's another level of analysis.
|
|