The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

[turtmcfly]

1 hour ago, Corky said:

Football365 seem to change their minds daily on us. We are great, then shit at Old Trafford, then great again, then can't attack well now are good again.

 

Different writers. Different opinions.

[Manini]

2 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Everton fans constantly got a chip on their shoulder, we are everything they wish they were. 

Hmm I think the cause of that chip on their shoulder is a lot closer to home for them. Liverpool are probs everything they wish they were to be fair. They are a bit odd everton fans, but I don’t half sympathise with them you know. 

Edited 23 October 2019 by Manini

[Manini]

2 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Am I the only person that realises/thinks the Everton tweet was entirely self knowing?

Ahhhhh yeah. Now you’ve said it. My above point still stands though IMO. 

[Corky]

2 hours ago, turtmcfly said:

 

Different writers. Different opinions.

I know, just thinking about how it would look if they were all in a list and how odd it would appear.

 

 

[BoyJones]

9 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

No, it's not speculation at all. It's really a more informative version of shots on goal and shots on target stats. It tells you how many goals a team 'should' have scored based on the number and quality of chances they created.

Mate, it's total speculation. It's all subjective.

 

Is a chance from three yards out the same as one one from five yards, or is further away easier? Is it raining? Is the goalie out of position? Has the chance fallen to the players stronger foot? It's all cobblers, just based on subjectiveness, not objectivity or real measurements which can be challenged. 

[Stadt]

2 hours ago, BoyJones said:

Mate, it's total speculation. It's all subjective.

 

Is a chance from three yards out the same as one one from five yards, or is further away easier? Is it raining? Is the goalie out of position? Has the chance fallen to the players stronger foot? It's all cobblers, just based on subjectiveness, not objectivity or real measurements which can be challenged. 

A lot of those things are taken into account. It pretty much objectively says on average a shot taken from y position struck with a foot (as opposed to a head) yields a goal roughly 25% of the time. There's a post shot xG model which is more detailed and includes more factors.

 

 

[daventry_fox]

9 hours ago, BoyJones said:

Mate, it's total speculation. It's all subjective.

 

Is a chance from three yards out the same as one one from five yards, or is further away easier? Is it raining? Is the goalie out of position? Has the chance fallen to the players stronger foot? It's all cobblers, just based on subjectiveness, not objectivity or real measurements which can be challenged. 

It's something for the football hipsters with their top knots and borussia Dortmund shirts on to feel smug about while they're sniffing they're own farts. the sort of rubbish a "But he's good on FIFA" idiot would spout. 

 

It's just a pointless stat. At the end of the game player X either took the chance or he didn't. Does it really matter if he had a 30% chance of scoring while a pigeon is flying within a 100 mile radius. 

 

Yeah vardy for example may have a 75% chance of scoring a certain chance, based on similar chances, but de gea could have an 80% chance of making a save because he's saved 80% of similar chances. But nobody goes on about xS (expected saves) Or expected defensive recoveries etc etc

Edited 24 October 2019 by daventry_fox

[Leeds Fox]

10 minutes ago, daventry_fox said:

It's something for the football hipsters with their top knots and borussia Dortmund shirts on to feel smug about while they're sniffing they're own farts. the sort of rubbish a "But he's good on FIFA" idiot would spout. 

 

It's just a pointless stat. At the end of the game player X either took the chance or he didn't. Does it really matter if he had a 30% chance of scoring while a pigeon is flying within a 100 mile radius. 

 

Yeah vardy for example may have a 75% chance of scoring a certain chance, based on similar chances, but de gea could have an 80% chance of making a save because he's saved 80% of similar chances. 

 

I was reading the post above, saw the still of the video (assuming the guy has a patronising voice about to explain it all to us), and wanted to put something. 

 

Went down one comment and you'd already put it perfectly. 

 

It’s one stat that people take as a guideline to a teams success... ignoring 1000s of other variables that occur over the course of a game. 

 

I know it is purely a stat on how likely a chance is to be taken, but it’s being used as a measure of a teams likely success. It doesn’t take into account the risks taken to create these chances. 

 

The video says the sample was taken over 300,000 attempts, the quality of the striker and goalkeeper obviously play a huge part too. 

Edited 24 October 2019 by Leeds Fox

[Raw Dykes]

30 minutes ago, daventry_fox said:

It's something for the football hipsters with their top knots and borussia Dortmund shirts on to feel smug about while they're sniffing they're own farts. the sort of rubbish a "But he's good on FIFA" idiot would spout. 

 

It's just a pointless stat. At the end of the game player X either took the chance or he didn't. Does it really matter if he had a 30% chance of scoring while a pigeon is flying within a 100 mile radius. 

 

Yeah vardy for example may have a 75% chance of scoring a certain chance, based on similar chances, but de gea could have an 80% chance of making a save because he's saved 80% of similar chances. But nobody goes on about xS (expected saves) Or expected defensive recoveries etc etc

It's not pointless just because you don't get it.

 

We used to just look at shots taken and shots on target to get an idea of how a match went. However, these can be misleading. One team might have been taking long range potshots all match that the keeper was catching without having to move his feet, while the other team may have rattled the woodwork a few times from close range.

 

xG is just a more detailed version of shots stats to paint a better picture. It assigns a score for each type of chance created based on the probability of it resulting in a goal. Say, 0.8 for a penalty and 0.1 for a 30-yarder. Not all chances are equal, and xG is designed to account for that.

 

You can get an idea of how well a keeper played by looking at the opposition's xG and comparing it to the actual score.

 

It's not perfect, and can still be misleading, but it's better than what we had before, and is still in its infancy.

[daventry_fox]

9 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

It's not pointless just because you don't get it.

 

We used to just look at shots taken and shots on target to get an idea of how a match went. However, these can be misleading. One team might have been taking long range potshots all match that the keeper was catching without having to move his feet, while the other team may have rattled the woodwork a few times from close range.

 

xG is just a more detailed version of shots stats to paint a better picture. It assigns a score for each type of chance created based on the probability of it resulting in a goal. Say, 0.8 for a penalty and 0.1 for a 30-yarder. Not all chances are equal, and xG is designed to account for that.

 

You can get an idea of how well a keeper played by looking at the opposition's xG and comparing it to the actual score.

 

It's not perfect, and can still be misleading, but it's better than what we had before, and is still in its infancy

All stats are pointless...except the goals scored stat. 

[Wolfox]

10 minutes ago, daventry_fox said:

All stats are pointless...except the goals scored stat. 

We better sack of that  £100k head of data that we just employed then…

 

our scouting team use a ton of stats to assess players and how far along they are in their development…

 

Stats are relevant and are part of modern football and just because we don’t like what they’re telling us

doesn’t make them any less relevant 

[Dahnsouff]

15 minutes ago, daventry_fox said:

All stats are pointless...except the goals scored stat. 

Ok, lets look at this a different way - what does goals scored tell you?

- how many goal you scored (no sh*t) - but what else?

- who your goal providers are

- but also who couldn`t hit a barn door

Then look a little deeper . Who puts this super chances on a plate for our goal scorer?

- And then who was sh*t at assist

Were these assist on the ground?

- yes they were through balls

- Did we get many assists from crosses?

- No cos Chilwell cannot cross for poo

 

This tyoe i]of info can guide training, recruitment, set pieces, etc, etc

 

Not sure how you can conclude stats are useless, unless you are being deliberately obtuse. 

 

[daventry_fox]

11 minutes ago, Wolfox said:

We better sack of that  £100k head of data that we just employed then…

 

our scouting team use a ton of stats to assess players and how far along they are in their development…

 

Stats are relevant and are part of modern football and just because we don’t like what they’re telling us

doesn’t make them any less relevant 

Yeah the difference being they all have input into match day squads etc etc etc. 

 

We don't so yeah it's pointless information to be debating 

Edited 24 October 2019 by daventry_fox

[Xen]

3 minutes ago, Wolfox said:

We better sack of that  £100k head of data that we just employed then…

 

our scouting team use a ton of stats to assess players and how far along they are in their development…

 

Stats are relevant and are part of modern football and just because we don’t like what they’re telling us

doesn’t make them any less relevant 

Piggybacking from this comment a bit, the types of stats that actually matter to the club aren't necessarily going to be the same that get peddled out by the media. xG is the current fad because its a relatively easy-to-digest figure that Sky can throw up on the big screen and the viewers will understand without much explanation. The club's analysts will be looking at this, sure, but they'll also be focussing on so many more in-depth, niche datapoints that just aren't very media-friendly.

 

Shortly after we were promoted (iirc) LCFC hosted a conference on scouting and Rob Mackenzie mentioned something about looking at the ratio of passes which attempt to break the lines of the defense, rather than bog-standard pass-completion. When we were winning the league we often started matches with a kick into touch because we'd identified that throw-in success% was much lower in the first 5 minutes so we were more likely to win the ball back higher up the pitch. Neither of those are easy to fit into a narrative or a handy little graph, so we don't often hear about them.

[ealingfox]

What a strange thing to get so bitter and weird about.

[daventry_fox]

12 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

What a strange thing to get so bitter and weird about.

Someone's opinion differs from yours they must be bitter and weird right? 

 

Great input to the discussion there buddy

Edited 24 October 2019 by daventry_fox

[turtmcfly]

2 minutes ago, daventry_fox said:

Someone's opinion differs from yours they must be bitter right? 

 

'It's something for the football hipsters with their top knots and borussia Dortmund shirts on to feel smug about while they're sniffing they're own farts. the sort of rubbish a "But he's good on FIFA" idiot would spout. '

 

It's hard to see why anyone would think you were bitter.

 

While some on here have manfully tried to explain the xG stat, and why it might be an interesting indicator of performance, all you've got is 'it's shit', and pearls like 'All stats are pointless...except the goals scored stat.' which manages to be both simple and incorrect.

[Paddy_D]

“you can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

Edited 24 October 2019 by Paddy_D

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

What a strange thing to get so bitter and weird about.

Stats are for nerds, real football men know the only things that matter are goals, pints and fighting

[daventry_fox]

17 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

'It's something for the football hipsters with their top knots and borussia Dortmund shirts on to feel smug about while they're sniffing they're own farts. the sort of rubbish a "But he's good on FIFA" idiot would spout. '

 

It's hard to see why anyone would think you were bitter.

 

While some on here have manfully tried to explain the xG stat, and why it might be an interesting indicator of performance, all you've got is 'it's shit', and pearls like 'All stats are pointless...except the goals scored stat.' which manages to be both simple and incorrect.

Great but of selective quoting going on there. Ignored the part where I explained why I thought it was shit, based on the expected save stat that weirdly nobody bangs on about.

 

I agree performance based stats are hugely beneficial to managers, coaches and the like. 

But none of us are selecting the team week in week out are we. As If you can't tell a good player from a bad player without having a spread sheet in front of you 

 

[OntarioFox]

OK, I sat down during some downtime and actually looked at the current stats, and here's a screenshot of what the current table would look like if xG and xGA actually mattered.

 

In a rough sense, we'd be sat somewhere just above the relegation zone. We're second-bottom in expected goals, despite scoring the fourth-most goals in the league. Our xGA is a little closer to reality, but we're sat 7th behind the likes of Burnley and Everton, who have conceded 3 and 5 more goals than us respectively.

Looking at these stats only reinforces my point that the only sides for whom xG and xGA reliably mirror reality are the ones at the extremes.

In the case of xG, Liverpool and Man City are up there as you'd expect. For xGA, the teams down at the bottom (Watford, Norwich, Brighton) are all near the top of the list, though Watford's is probably permanently skewed by their early form and especially by them being hit for 8 by Man City.

 

But you also have incredibly erratic entries in the table. We know we could be more creative, but based on these stats we should be staring over our shoulder at the relegation trapdoor, Villa should be sat where we are in the table and West Ham should be losing every game they play by a 4 or 5 goal margin. And as for Man Utd., they can apparently expect to concede the least goals a game of any side. That's not too far from reality in fairness, but they've still conceded more than the likes of ourselves, Liverpool and Sheffield United and are losing games when they concede those goals, which does make their current predicament rather more funny. 

 

You can't even reliably identify trends with xG or xGA because of how inconsistent they are unless you're REALLY good or bad. While Spurs' protracted dip in form is clear (them being mid table in both xG and xGA), Man Utd's own malaise is practically non-existent, with them sat 7th on xG and top of the table on xGA. Both, in reality, are playing like bog-standard mid-table teams at present, suffering from the same issues of creativity and conceding sloppy goals, but according to these tables Spurs are on their way to where they should be and Man Utd. should be breathing down Liverpool's neck at the top of the table... and we all know how utterly absurd a statement the latter is right now.

 

So yeah, I'm still struggling to take either xG or xGA seriously as relevant stats. They're fun to piss around with and think of what could have been, but there really isn't much you can take away from them besides a little comfort if you feel your team is getting less than it deserves.

 

I'll take one thing back though - I'm gonna stop calling these stats "Spursy", because they're even worse in these tables than they are in the actual league. 

 

Edited 24 October 2019 by OntarioFox

[UpTheLeagueFox]

 

[daventry_fox]

20 minutes ago, OntarioFox said:

OK, I sat down during some downtime and actually looked at the current stats, and here's a screenshot of what the current table would look like if xG and xGA actually mattered.

 

In a rough sense, we'd be sat somewhere just above the relegation zone. We're second-bottom in expected goals, despite scoring the fourth-most goals in the league. Our xGA is a little closer to reality, but we're sat 7th behind the likes of Burnley and Everton, who have conceded 3 and 5 more goals than us respectively.

Looking at these stats only reinforces my point that the only sides for whom xG and xGA reliably mirror reality are the ones at the extremes.

In the case of xG, Liverpool and Man City are up there as you'd expect. For xGA, the teams down at the bottom (Watford, Norwich, Brighton) are all near the top of the list, though Watford's is probably permanently skewed by their early form and especially by them being hit for 8 by Man City.

 

But you also have incredibly erratic entries in the table. We know we could be more creative, but based on these stats we should be staring over our shoulder at the relegation trapdoor, Villa should be sat where we are in the table and West Ham should be losing every game they play by a 4 or 5 goal margin. And as for Man Utd., they can apparently expect to concede the least goals a game of any side. That's not too far from reality in fairness, but they've still conceded more than the likes of ourselves, Liverpool and Sheffield United and are losing games when they concede those goals, which does make their current predicament rather more funny. 

 

You can't even reliably identify trends with xG or xGA because of how inconsistent they are unless you're REALLY good or bad. While Spurs' protracted dip in form is clear (them being mid table in both xG and xGA), Man Utd's own malaise is practically non-existent, with them sat 7th on xG and top of the table on xGA. Both, in reality, are playing like bog-standard mid-table teams at present, suffering from the same issues of creativity and conceding sloppy goals, but according to these tables Spurs are on their way to where they should be and Man Utd. should be breathing down Liverpool's neck at the top of the table... and we all know how utterly absurd a statement the latter is right now.

 

So yeah, I'm still struggling to take either xG or xGA seriously as relevant stats. They're fun to piss around with and think of what could have been, but there really isn't much you can take away from them besides a little comfort if you feel your team is getting less than it deserves.

 

I'll take one thing back though - I'm gonna stop calling these stats "Spursy", because they're even worse in these tables than they are in the actual league. 

 

This 👏👏 but as of the start of this season its just a new fad for people to jump on 

Edited 24 October 2019 by daventry_fox

[Raw Dykes]

17 minutes ago, OntarioFox said:

(long post I'll save people having to scroll through twice.)

I think you might be misunderstanding what xG and xGA stats are used for. They are not supposed to have predictive powers or anything like that. They're meant as an indicator of how a team has performed in terms of creating quality chances and preventing the opposition doing the same, respectively.

 

If we have a very low xG, but find ourselves near the top of the table, then we can suspect that we have a clinical team that doesn't need to create very much to score goals. Conversely, a team with high xG who still score few goals is likely to be wasteful in front of goal.

 

Obviously, goals are what matter, so you want to create as many good chances as possible, and someone on the end of them who isn't going to fuch up very often. We have the latter, and by looking at xG, we can see that we could be doing more about the former.

[Dahnsouff]

Is it time for a "Stats" thread? (Is there one?!?)