|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jan 4, 2023 14:24:09 GMT
I don't bother with stats. I just look at the league table.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2023 14:32:43 GMT
I don't bother with stats. I just look at the league table. "The table never lies" is one of the biggest, most prevalent lies in football. "The table will display an ever stronger correlation to performance over larger samples" doesn't quite have the same ring I'll admit. footballxg.com/xg-league-tables/According to this Blackburn (3rd) should actually be 20th. That's a fucking whopper!
|
|
|
xG stats
Jan 4, 2023 14:43:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2023 14:43:19 GMT
I don't bother with stats. I just look at the league table. "The table never lies" is one of the biggest, most prevalent lies in football. "The table will display an ever stronger correlation to performance over larger samples" doesn't quite have the same ring I'll admit. footballxg.com/xg-league-tables/According to this Blackburn (3rd) should actually be 20th. That's a fucking whopper! They have had a weird season without a single draw so far and a goal difference of zero in third place. They've only scored two more than us.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 4, 2023 14:53:16 GMT
If ever there was an argument for xg being a load of wank there it is! Do you actually understand statistics? There is never any perfect correlation between a statistical analysis and individual outcomes. There will be variations either way and there will be "outliers" - individual outcomes that seem to defy the statistical trend. However a properly conducted statistical analysis will provide a pretty accurate view of the overall position - way better than any analysis based on individual judgement. Dismissing xG because some of the outcomes aren't spot on says more about your understanding of numbers than the validity of the methodology.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 4, 2023 14:56:09 GMT
If ever there was an argument for xg being a load of wank there it is! Do you actually understand statistics? There is never any perfect correlation between a statistical analysis and individual outcomes. There will be variations either way and there will be "outliers" - individual outcomes that seem to defy the statistical trend. However a properly conducted statistical analysis will provide a pretty accurate view of the overall position - way better than any analysis based on individual judgement. Dismissing xG because some of the outcomes aren't spot on says more about your understanding of numbers than the validity of the methodology. It's made up shite.
|
|
|
xG stats
Jan 4, 2023 16:15:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by iamstokie on Jan 4, 2023 16:15:00 GMT
Do you actually understand statistics? There is never any perfect correlation between a statistical analysis and individual outcomes. There will be variations either way and there will be "outliers" - individual outcomes that seem to defy the statistical trend. However a properly conducted statistical analysis will provide a pretty accurate view of the overall position - way better than any analysis based on individual judgement. Dismissing xG because some of the outcomes aren't spot on says more about your understanding of numbers than the validity of the methodology. It's made up shite. The most pointless stat of them all tbh
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 4, 2023 17:02:37 GMT
I get the stats but the Championship this season is rubbish.
I was very unimpressed by Burnley buf their record is significantly the best. Sheffield Utd have had the easier half of the season for them and have yet to play a lot of top half teams away.
Blackburn's record for 3rd position is crazy. They've lost as many as Blackpool 3rd from bottom!
Never was it more the case that anyone can beat anyone.
As for Stoke , our lack of creativity is dire, our shooting is dire, our heading is dire, we rarely get half a dozen shots on target in 90 minutes, when we do they are weak shots straight to the GK, we only seem to score from defensive errors - gifts in the case of Rotherham, or a mele. I'm really getting depressed!
The only light at the end of the tunnel is things are so tight, if Neil could get the team to click, we could shoot up the league as everyone else is as bad!
|
|
|
xG stats
Jan 4, 2023 17:21:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by jhtstokie on Jan 4, 2023 17:21:12 GMT
xG doesn’t mean anything if you don’t put your chances away, should be arsed about actual goals rather than this
|
|
|
xG stats
Jan 4, 2023 17:59:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 4, 2023 17:59:51 GMT
xG doesn’t mean anything if you don’t put your chances away, should be arsed about actual goals rather than this I think it's interesting because it can tell you more about how to get better. Or where your players are shit or good. I'm sure teams like Brentford have been using as part of their whole strategy and I'd rather we be set up more like them. EDIT: obviously I care about actual goals. But I think that if we get some of the bet365 boffins involved we could get more actual goals.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2023 18:02:16 GMT
Criminally misused stat xG.
Has to be in conjunction with who is getting those chances, are we consistency creating the same sort of chances and are they falling at the feet of our players most likely to bury it etc.
No fucking use us having 2xg against Burnley when it's Fox etc, if they have 1xg and it's someone who knows where the fucking goal is.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 4, 2023 21:09:32 GMT
xG is the foundation of modern football analytics. It underpins every player/team model that is used in the game today.
It's a big part of why Liverpool won the PL & UCL, Brentford bought low & sold high and how they persuaded less clued up sides to pay over the odds for their players.
It's a soothing antidote to the idiocy of Ian Darke and his pundit mates claiming "he must score" & "this game should be 6-4" (usually at half time).
Fundamentally it looks at chances and the likelihood they are converted (nowhere near as high as people think), rather than just goals.
There are 10 times more chances than goals in a season, so by looking just at goals (the binary outcome of a chance), you are chucking away 90% of the data at the very start and taking a statistically noisy subset. Not a good idea.
Main takeaways.
Getting into good scoring positions is a repeatable skill. How frequently you convert those chances is much more prone to randomness.
How does it (broadly) apply to Stoke 2022/23.
We've scored 26 non OG goals from around 32 xG. Our on target xG is 27.5 xG. Short conclusion. We're not making the most of our location based chances (our on target xG is below our xG). And when we are on target the opposing keepers are making some good saves (our on target xG is above our actual goals scored).
At the other end of the pitch.
Our xG allowed is 32 and our goals allowed is 32 (discounting OG's).
But, our on target xG allowed is only 25.
So likely scenario is that the opposing strikers aren't getting the ball on target as well as they might (perhaps credit our defenders for that), but when they do get the ball on target our keeper(s) aren't making a great fist at saving them even with an average level competence. We've had the odd, consistently awful shot stopper of late.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jan 4, 2023 21:35:53 GMT
xG is the foundation of modern football analytics. It underpins every player/team model that is used in the game today. It's a big part of why Liverpool won the PL & UCL, Brentford bought low & sold high and how they persuaded less clued up sides to pay over the odds for their players. It's a soothing antidote to the idiocy of Ian Darke and his pundit mates claiming "he must score" & "this game should be 6-4" (usually at half time). Fundamentally it looks at chances and the likelihood they are converted (nowhere near as high as people think), rather than just goals. There are 10 times more chances than goals in a season, so by looking just at goals (the binary outcome of a chance), you are chucking away 90% of the data at the very start and taking a statistically noisy subset. Not a good idea. Main takeaways. Getting into good scoring positions is a repeatable skill. How frequently you convert those chances is much more prone to randomness. How does it (broadly) apply to Stoke 2022/23. We've scored 26 non OG goals from around 32 xG. Our on target xG is 27.5 xG. Short conclusion. We're not making the most of our location based chances (our on target xG is below our xG). And when we are on target the opposing keepers are making some good saves (our on target xG is above our actual goals scored). At the other end of the pitch. Our xG allowed is 32 and our goals allowed is 32 (discounting OG's). But, our on target xG allowed is only 25. So likely scenario is that the opposing strikers aren't getting the ball on target as well as they might (perhaps credit our defenders for that), but when they do get the ball on target our keeper(s) aren't making a great fist at saving them even with an average level competence. We've had the odd, consistently awful shot stopper of late. Thanks for that. Does xG take into account how well struck or placed a shot might be (re your comment about opposing keepers making good saves) or does a scuffed shot straight at the keeper that "my granny" could save have no effect on xG? As a former keeper I am struggling to recall any games this season where I have left having been impressed by the saves made by the opposition keeper. (I am getting on a bit so my memory might not be all that. )
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 4, 2023 22:04:19 GMT
. Does xG take into account how well struck or placed a shot might be (re your comment about opposing keepers making good saves) or does a scuffed shot straight at the keeper that "my granny" could save have no effect on xG? As a former keeper I am struggling to recall any games this season where I have left having been impressed by the saves made by the opposition keeper. (I am getting on a bit so my memory might not be all that. ) Football analytics has always had a problem naming metrics. (Hockey named theirs after players & bloggers....which is arguably much worse) Expected goals or xG as quoted in these posts refers to everything and everywhere that happens before a shot or header takes place. On target xG that I've mentioned in my post includes everything that happens before and after the attempt. So that does include how well the shot/header was struck, where it did/would cross the goal line, what's the keeper's line of sight like, was it deflected (a keeper killer) etc. It's also call post shot xG, PSxG. I called it xG2 for a year or two and still do for old times sake. Keepers are judged on xG2, not xG.
|
|
|
xG stats
Jan 4, 2023 22:29:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 4, 2023 22:29:08 GMT
Holy crap tachyon. If I read your numbers right our shooters and keepers both suck?
And the rest of the team is performing middle of the pack-ish.
|
|
|
Post by nonameface on Jan 4, 2023 22:52:50 GMT
Holy crap tachyon. If I read your numbers right out shooters and keepers both suck? And the rest of the team is performing middle of the pack-ish. Theres a reason GK is probably the most important signing for us. Could have saved atleast 7 goals already. I wonder how many additional points that would likely have resulted in? 5? more?
|
|
|
xG stats
Jan 4, 2023 23:21:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 4, 2023 23:21:13 GMT
Do you actually understand statistics? There is never any perfect correlation between a statistical analysis and individual outcomes. There will be variations either way and there will be "outliers" - individual outcomes that seem to defy the statistical trend. However a properly conducted statistical analysis will provide a pretty accurate view of the overall position - way better than any analysis based on individual judgement. Dismissing xG because some of the outcomes aren't spot on says more about your understanding of numbers than the validity of the methodology. It's made up shite. It's an imperfect attempt at an objective assessment of what actually happens in the real world and as such is the most accurate description available. Unlike your or any one else's opinion - which quite literally is made up shite.
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Jan 4, 2023 23:27:11 GMT
xG is the foundation of modern football analytics. It underpins every player/team model that is used in the game today. It's a big part of why Liverpool won the PL & UCL, Brentford bought low & sold high and how they persuaded less clued up sides to pay over the odds for their players. It's a soothing antidote to the idiocy of Ian Darke and his pundit mates claiming "he must score" & "this game should be 6-4" (usually at half time). Fundamentally it looks at chances and the likelihood they are converted (nowhere near as high as people think), rather than just goals. There are 10 times more chances than goals in a season, so by looking just at goals (the binary outcome of a chance), you are chucking away 90% of the data at the very start and taking a statistically noisy subset. Not a good idea. Main takeaways. Getting into good scoring positions is a repeatable skill. How frequently you convert those chances is much more prone to randomness. How does it (broadly) apply to Stoke 2022/23. We've scored 26 non OG goals from around 32 xG. Our on target xG is 27.5 xG. Short conclusion. We're not making the most of our location based chances (our on target xG is below our xG). And when we are on target the opposing keepers are making some good saves (our on target xG is above our actual goals scored). At the other end of the pitch. Our xG allowed is 32 and our goals allowed is 32 (discounting OG's). But, our on target xG allowed is only 25. So likely scenario is that the opposing strikers aren't getting the ball on target as well as they might (perhaps credit our defenders for that), but when they do get the ball on target our keeper(s) aren't making a great fist at saving them even with an average level competence. We've had the odd, consistently awful shot stopper of late. Being an owdegit I haven’t a clue what your comprehensive post means or whether it’s relevant in a win, draw or lose correlation to points earned Apologies
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 5, 2023 6:25:21 GMT
No need. All to need to know is previous xG predicts future goals better than previous goals does. The "All that matters is the result" mantra is wrong. The "xG is shite" brigade are wrong. There's no debate to be had. xG has won.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jan 5, 2023 9:41:40 GMT
The last two or three Southampton games have predicted them to have higher XG than their opponents - who on here would have seriously backed them to win any of them with our own knowledge of Nathan Jones?
"Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts." Aberdeen manager Ebbe Skovdahl in 2001 when hearing that Arild Stavrum had more shots on target than Henrik Larsson
Our strikers have an Xg of this and our keeper has an Xg of that - our midfield actually managed 4 tackles between them in the entire game v PNE so improve that actual stat and the rest will follow for me.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 5, 2023 9:44:58 GMT
The last two or three Southampton games have predicted them to have higher XG than their opponents - who on here would have seriously backed them to win any of them with our own knowledge of Nathan Jones? "Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts." Aberdeen manager Ebbe Skovdahl in 2001 when hearing that Arild Stavrum had more shots on target than Henrik Larsson Our strikers have an Xg of this and our keeper has an Xg of that - our midfield actually managed 4 tackles between them in the entire game v PNE so improve that actual stat and the rest will follow for me. I think the fact that we’re creating chances is certainly a positive, as grim and shapeless as our overall play is. Keep creating chances and the goals will come.
|
|
|
xG stats
Jan 5, 2023 9:47:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by Veritas on Jan 5, 2023 9:47:21 GMT
The last two or three Southampton games have predicted them to have higher XG than their opponents - who on here would have seriously backed them to win any of them with our own knowledge of Nathan Jones? "Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts." Aberdeen manager Ebbe Skovdahl in 2001 when hearing that Arild Stavrum had more shots on target than Henrik Larsson Our strikers have an Xg of this and our keeper has an Xg of that - our midfield actually managed 4 tackles between them in the entire game v PNE so improve that actual stat and the rest will follow for me. I think the fact that we’re creating chances is certainly a positive, as grim and shapeless as our overall play is. Keep creating chances and the goals will come. Are you sure? The goals are taking a long time to come for us.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jan 5, 2023 10:05:58 GMT
The last two or three Southampton games have predicted them to have higher XG than their opponents - who on here would have seriously backed them to win any of them with our own knowledge of Nathan Jones? "Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts." Aberdeen manager Ebbe Skovdahl in 2001 when hearing that Arild Stavrum had more shots on target than Henrik Larsson Our strikers have an Xg of this and our keeper has an Xg of that - our midfield actually managed 4 tackles between them in the entire game v PNE so improve that actual stat and the rest will follow for me. I think the fact that we’re creating chances is certainly a positive, as grim and shapeless as our overall play is. Keep creating chances and the goals will come. I think we are too but they come along with the frequency, structure and logic of a train timetable at the moment - they just seem to turn up without rhyme or reason at variously spaced intervals. If we get someone in the middle of the pitch that can actually tackle then it takes the pressure off of the defence that takes the pressure off the keeper and moves us 10 yards up the pitch taking the pressure off the strikers. Having the midfield taking it on the half turn rather than regularly passing it back to the centre backs to inevitably launch with no target man would help too but baby steps. I think we'll avoid relegation but get the sense there is a rot set in like the last few seasons in the premiership when the relegation seemed inevitable and a long time coming.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 5, 2023 10:07:57 GMT
I think the fact that we’re creating chances is certainly a positive, as grim and shapeless as our overall play is. Keep creating chances and the goals will come. Are you sure? The goals are taking a long time to come for us. I don't think we'll keep missing chances like that, no. I'd be a lot more worried if we simply weren't creating anything. We're having more shots and more shots on target than last season. I think if that continues then we'll score more. I'm not saying we're playing anything other than badly, patently we are, but I do see things improving to some degree.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 5, 2023 10:08:57 GMT
I think the fact that we’re creating chances is certainly a positive, as grim and shapeless as our overall play is. Keep creating chances and the goals will come. I think we are too but they come along with the frequency, structure and logic of a train timetable at the moment - they just seem to turn up without rhyme or reason at variously spaced intervals. If we get someone in the middle of the pitch that can actually tackle then it takes the pressure off of the defence that takes the pressure off the keeper and moves us 10 yards up the pitch taking the pressure off the strikers. Having the midfield taking it on the half turn rather than regularly passing it back to the centre backs to inevitably launch with no target man would help too but baby steps. I think we'll avoid relegation but get the sense there is a rot set in like the last few seasons in the premiership when the relegation seemed inevitable and a long time coming. Agree with most of that but I don't see us being relegated either this season or in the next few seasons.
|
|
|
xG stats
Jan 5, 2023 11:37:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by Rick Grimes on Jan 5, 2023 11:37:29 GMT
The last two or three Southampton games have predicted them to have higher XG than their opponents - who on here would have seriously backed them to win any of them with our own knowledge of Nathan Jones? "Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts." Aberdeen manager Ebbe Skovdahl in 2001 when hearing that Arild Stavrum had more shots on target than Henrik Larsson Our strikers have an Xg of this and our keeper has an Xg of that - our midfield actually managed 4 tackles between them in the entire game v PNE so improve that actual stat and the rest will follow for me. I think the fact that we’re creating chances is certainly a positive, as grim and shapeless as our overall play is. Keep creating chances and the goals will come. Hasn’t xG indicated that we should have been in a better position than we have actually been in for a while now? I might be mistaken but from memory I’m sure that’s the case. I don’t know enough about statistics to say xG is made up shite and tachyon makes a compelling case but at the same time as an example I don’t need xG to tell me our goalkeepers are shit because I can see that for myself.
|
|
|
xG stats
Jan 5, 2023 11:48:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2023 11:48:55 GMT
No need. All to need to know is previous xG predicts future goals better than previous goals does. The "All that matters is the result" mantra is wrong. The "xG is shite" brigade are wrong. There's no debate to be had. xG has won. I see it as a measure of variance/expected value in football. Even in fields with far higher variance, professionals still have a hard time wrapping their heads around it; and that’s even when they have lived experience and have toyed around with variance simulators. People completely under-estimate what a long term sample in football is. I’d argue that even a full season is prone to some wild deviations; hence my pushback against the cliche’ “the table never lies”. Our human monkey brains just aren’t built to process these things. But we have powerful computers these days to fill in the blanks. I’d go as far to suggest that all clubs at this level should have a statistical team running models and providing data; and that this data should be the cornerstone of decisions made by the club. I bet the likes of Brighton/Brentford have exactly that and I suspect we don’t and are still approaching things like it’s the 00s, and it’s a reason why we’ve been left in the dust. Get with the times or get passed by. Hopefully AN is hot on this stuff.
|
|
|
xG stats
Jan 5, 2023 11:54:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by Rick Grimes on Jan 5, 2023 11:54:03 GMT
No need. All to need to know is previous xG predicts future goals better than previous goals does. The "All that matters is the result" mantra is wrong. The "xG is shite" brigade are wrong. There's no debate to be had. xG has won. I see it as a measure of variance/expected value in football. Even in fields with far higher variance, professionals still have a hard time wrapping their heads around it; and that’s even when they have lived experience and have toyed around with variance simulators. People completely over-estimate what a long term sample in football is. I’d argue that even a full season is prone to some wild deviations; hence my pushback against the cliche’ “the table never lies”. Our human monkey brains just aren’t built to process these things. But we have powerful computers these days to fill in the blanks. I’d go as far to suggest that all clubs at this level should have a statistical team running models and providing data; and that this data should be the cornerstone of decisions made by the club. I bet the likes of Brighton/Brentford have exactly that and I suspect we don’t and are still approaching things like it’s the 00s, and it’s a reason why we’ve been left in the dust. Get with the times or get passed by. Hopefully AN is hot on this stuff. Neil does seem to be hot on with xG because he constantly references it in his interviews. To play devils advocate though I’m going to assume he’s persisted with Smallbone because he likes what he sees in terms of xG. That just doesn’t translate to what myself and many others (judging by the comments) see on the actual pitch which is that actually Smallbone isn’t very good.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2023 11:57:13 GMT
I see it as a measure of variance/expected value in football. Even in fields with far higher variance, professionals still have a hard time wrapping their heads around it; and that’s even when they have lived experience and have toyed around with variance simulators. People completely over-estimate what a long term sample in football is. I’d argue that even a full season is prone to some wild deviations; hence my pushback against the cliche’ “the table never lies”. Our human monkey brains just aren’t built to process these things. But we have powerful computers these days to fill in the blanks. I’d go as far to suggest that all clubs at this level should have a statistical team running models and providing data; and that this data should be the cornerstone of decisions made by the club. I bet the likes of Brighton/Brentford have exactly that and I suspect we don’t and are still approaching things like it’s the 00s, and it’s a reason why we’ve been left in the dust. Get with the times or get passed by. Hopefully AN is hot on this stuff. Neil does seem to be hot on with xG because he constantly references it in his interviews. To play devils advocate though I’m going to assume he’s persisted with Smallbone because he likes what he sees in terms of xG. That just doesn’t translate to what myself and many others (judging by the comments) see on the actual pitch which is that actually Smallbone isn’t very good. I don’t like smallbone either but it’s also possible he just has a great attitude and works hard in training and others don’t? As supporters we’re only ever privy to a snapshot of the full story; which is admittedly frustrating as hell.
|
|
|
Post by femark on Jan 5, 2023 12:04:18 GMT
1. Increase the amount of times we get into good shooting positions & improve our quality of shots.
2. Reduce the number of times the opposition gets into good shooting positions & improve our quality of saves.
To improve getting into good positions we need to work on our general play, positioning and tactics. To improve the quality of our shots we either train the strikers more effectively or get better strikers.
Similarly to reduce the opposition getting into good positions we need to work on our general play, positioning and tactics. To improve the quality of saves we either train the goalkeepers more effectively or get better goalkeepers.
Tactics, Training and Recruitment - the basics of football...
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 5, 2023 15:08:18 GMT
People completely under-estimate what a long term sample in football is. I’d argue that even a full season is prone to some wild deviations; hence my pushback against the cliche’ “the table never lies”. Roughly four whole repeated seasons to get most teams close to where their performance merits them to be. The table always lies for quite a few sides.
|
|