A statistical analysis of our start to the season

[inspiraL]

30 minutes ago, Morepork said:

The power of stats.

 

 

That's brilliant, never seen it before.

[Morepork]

Good post @tcuc3e unfortunately wasted on some.

 

In essence, the stats in question say we’ve somewhat overachieved and over the course of the season it’ll be almost impossible to continue delivering the same number of points per game as we have in the last four matches without us improving in some way. Up front and in defence……

 

Anyone who is honest enough and objective enough to be able to assess our games so far would have to conclude we could easily be in a very different position so far. Before anyone jumps on that statement that’s not to say we’ve not done well. The margin between success and failure is fine and quite often decided by luck.

 

We could quite easily have come out of these first 4 games with 4 draws. We’ve conceded 2 penalties and just about as many shots on target as we’ve created. The stats tell us we’re not prolific chance creators based on the number of chances created and the quality of those chances, that’s a fair assessment given one of our goals was a Bannan 25 yard effort, the other a spill by a keeper from an effort he holds on 9 other days. They also suggest we’re not defensively as strong that we appear because we’re not a team that prevents opponents from even creating chances. 
 

Posters suggesting xG isn’t a valuable tool, imbecilic really. Comparing it to % possession also ridiculous. Possession is a useful tool but  as some teams set up to avoid possession it’s not comparable to xG. I’m not aware of any team other than the Blades who set up to avoid scoring…..

 

Posters suggesting bookmakers don’t use stats….also rounduns. The difference with bookies is they also factor in the intangibles and over the years have become incredibly adept at it. They 100% utilise stats and analysis though.

 

I’d urge people to watch the vid I posted higher in the thread to highlight to power of analysis and how results can kid you about what’s really going on under the hood.

The game is headed to a point where managers are just “man managers” analysis is going to determine who plays, what position they play in, etc, etc. It happens in US sports and as we see more US ownership here then expect these things to be implemented in our game, rightly or wrongly….

Edited August 23, 2021 by Morepork

[Guest LondonOwl313]

3 minutes ago, Morepork said:

Good post @tcuc3e unfortunately wasted on some.

 

In essence, the stats in question say we’ve somewhat overachieved and over the course of the season it’ll be almost impossible to continue delivering the same number of points per game as we have in the last four matches without us improving in some way. Up front and in defence……

 

Anyone who is honest enough and objective enough to be able to assess our games so far would have to conclude we could easily be in a very different position so far. Before anyone jumps on that statement that’s not to say we’ve not done well. The margin between success and failure is fine and quite often decided by luck.

 

We could quite easily have come out of these first 4 games with 4 draws. We’ve conceded 2 penalties and just about as many shots on target as we’ve created. The stats tell us we’re not prolific chance creators based on the number of chances created and the quality of those chances, that’s a fair assessment given one of our goals was a Bannan 25 yard effort, the other a spill by a keeper from an effort he holds on 9 other days. They also suggest we’re not defensively as strong that we appear because we’re not a team that prevents opponents from even creating chances. 
 

Posters suggesting xG isn’t a valuable tool, imbecilic really. Comparing it to % possession also ridiculous. Possession is a useful tool but  as some teams set up to avoid possession it’s not comparable to xG. I’m not aware of any team other than the Blades who set up to avoid scoring…..

 

Posters suggesting bookmakers don’t use stats….also rounduns. The difference with bookies is they also factor in the intangibles and over the years have become incredibly adept at it. They 100% utilise stats and analysis though.

 

I’d urge people to watch the vid I posted higher in the thread to highlight to power of analysis and how results can kid you about what’s really going on under the hood.

 

Without the penalties we have the best xGA in the league which is kind of expected.. and someone pointed out that the average xG is wrong as the xG in all of our games individually is higher than the average so how does that work.

 

Our 4 goals excluding the Bannan strike have been relatively easy chances, and we've definitely not conceded chances as easy as those at the other end in open play. Most people would have scored Gregory's two, although you have to be in the right place at the right time which is a massive part of it.

 

I think on balance we've had the better chances in all the games penalties aside... the Rotherham game could have gone very differently though had they scored that at 0-0.

 

Think people think we've shaded it and if the xG stats don't back up what they're seeing with their eyes then thats why they discard them. But if the average xG is higher than what the OP said it makes sense.

[OwlinOldham]

2 hours ago, Morepork said:

The power of stats.

 

 

 

Loved this. Actually made it clear and understandable about how stats can be used effectively to figure the chances of things happening etc. I still stand by my earlier comment though, on that i dont think 4 games worth of data is anywhere near enough to accurately reflect a teams chances just yet. If we still have crappy xG's after 15 games, then it might be time to worry about it. 

[Morepork]

4 minutes ago, OwlinOldham said:

 

Loved this. Actually made it clear and understandable about how stats can be used effectively to figure the chances of things happening etc. I still stand by my earlier comment though, on that i dont think 4 games worth of data is anywhere near enough to accurately reflect a teams chances just yet. If we still have crappy xG's after 15 games, then it might be time to worry about it. 

Yeah it’s a great vid. I agree, 4-5 games is a tiny sample, also for us, the intangibles come into play, new squad, feel good factor even. 10 games for me is always the point at which I’d start to draw some conclusions about us, both statistically and anecdotally.

[Emerson Thome]

7 hours ago, owlprince said:

Our XG for individual games:

 

Charlton .88

donny 1.53

fleetwood 1.5

rotherham.84     

 

How have they come out with an average of .62?

 

also don't know they have calculated it as Rotherham chances were both high quality chances where the forward should be expected to score? 

 

I quite like xG as a way to break down the chances, it is often better than just looking at the number of shots - e.g. vs Fleetwood both teams had 11 shots, but some of ours were right in front of goal but all of Fleetwood's were pot shots from 30 yards.

 

Although it does have its weaknesses. E.g. Gregory was clean through on goal against Rotherham, took a bad touch, and it ended up being quite a low xG because his bad touch had taken him wide. A more extreme example, you could square a pass to a player with an open goal, 1 yard out, one that should be scored 99/100 and if he takes a fresh air kick then it is an xG of 0 as technically he hasn't had a shot.

 

The other thing about xG is there are so many different ways of calculating it so no-one agrees. That FootyStats website has us averaging 0.62 per game. The source that owlprince has found above has us at 1.19 per game, and the bloke I follow on twitter that does xG (@xG_Data) has us at 1.11 per game (Charlton = 0.22, Donny = 0.7, Fleetwood = 2.11, Rotherham = 1.41). As you can see there is a massive disparity between the numbers.

 

[Daniele Giovanni]

8 hours ago, tcuc3e said:

It's great to be top of the league, unbeaten and without conceding a goal.  Ultimately those are the stats that matter and if they continue then HMS PSL will be full steam ahead.  However the odds are that it won't be quite that straightforward over the next 40+ games.

 

For a slightly more detailed look at the performances so far I took a look at the xG stats.  For those that don't know xG stands for expected goals scored per game. It's calculated by taking into account shot positions, shot accuracy (on/off target), shot frequency (number of shots), attack dangerousness and overall attack pressure (possession amount and depth of possession).

 

It's generally understood to provide a more detailed assessment of how a team is playing than the win/loss column, even if that is all that matters at the end of the day.  Top teams use it to assess their performances (and it's used a lot in fantasy football).

 

So far Wednesday are:

 

18th in xG with 0.62 per game.

 

I think many have pointed out that despite picking up points we've not actually been clicking on all cylinders yet and this would back that up. Certainly areas to improve and as the squad gels hopefully better performances will come.

 

A note about Saturday.  That game will be between the worst side in xG at Home, Morecambe, with 0.37 per game against the us, the second worst side in Away xG at 0.32.   It might not be a classic for the neutrals! 

 

 

 

 

Do you ever go outside? 

[OwlinOldham]

9 minutes ago, Morepork said:

Yeah it’s a great vid. I agree, 4-5 games is a tiny sample, also for us, the intangibles come into play, new squad, feel good factor even. 10 games for me is always the point at which I’d start to draw some conclusions about us, both statistically and anecdotally.

 

The early season is always awash with freak results, events and outcomes that just dont normally play out across more than a few games. Aiden Flint being current championship top scorer is just one example. Even us facing two penalties and not conceding from either is another. Both very unlikely, but both also skew the stats massively. Either way though, its not as complicated as i first thought all this xG stuff, might give it another look. 

[owlinexile]

Hate all this stuff.

 

Sucks all the joy and magic out of the sport by reducing it to a bunch of variables in a spreadsheet.

 

Might as well just be watching someone play Football Manager.

[Morepork]

12 minutes ago, OwlinOldham said:

 

The early season is always awash with freak results, events and outcomes that just dont normally play out across more than a few games. Aiden Flint being current championship top scorer is just one example. Even us facing two penalties and not conceding from either is another. Both very unlikely, but both also skew the stats massively. Either way though, its not as complicated as i first thought all this xG stuff, might give it another look. 

It’s all part of the fun for me. But, it’s only a small part of the picture. Like @LondonOwl313 and @Emerson Thome have pointed out in their posts above there are lots of considerations, mitigating factors etc. For instance xG doesn’t/can’t measure the quality of the player an opportunity falls to.
 

Stats and the analysis of is here to stay though and I maintain it’s only going to become more dominant in the decision making process at clubs.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Morepork

[Morepork]

1 minute ago, owlinexile said:

Hate all this stuff.

 

Sucks all the joy and magic out of the sport by reducing it to a bunch of variables in a spreadsheet.

 

Might as well just be watching someone play Football Manager.

One mans meat is another’s poison mate.

[Daavies;]

xG is brilliant data to support coaches on making decisions on how to improve a team. Looking at it over 4 games however is not appropriate as you need a large sample of games to read anything too much into it. Especially when we have a brand new team in a new league. At the moment the data is extremely random at best. More efficient data would be distance travelled in a match and tackles etc. How is our work rate right now? My eye test is telling me we seem to be getting stronger in games, especially the Rotheram game.

[Old Woodbourn Owl]

I agree stats do have a part to play but not to the extent they do in say American football where they can be used due to set plays etc. American football is very robotic and more like a game of chess than football whose simplicity is its joy. Statistics dont take into account cheating like players diving which show up as fouls but in reality are not and penalties the same. So although we are shown as conceding 2 penalties would you change anything with your team for bad refereeing. The human element also screws with statistics shoot from distance when you know keepers are not very good but we have seen loads of not very good keepers play above their status against us. Also lots of teams raise there games against us for various reasons and others cheat more so statistics only show so much and has someone else said fine margins in football. When we have won the league at the end of the season I will be delighted if statistics show we were the best team but not too bothered if they dont. 

[BRUCE LEE]

Yeah but

 

We’ve got Bannan

[owlprince]

7 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

I quite like xG as a way to break down the chances, it is often better than just looking at the number of shots - e.g. vs Fleetwood both teams had 11 shots, but some of ours were right in front of goal but all of Fleetwood's were pot shots from 30 yards.

 

Although it does have its weaknesses. E.g. Gregory was clean through on goal against Rotherham, took a bad touch, and it ended up being quite a low xG because his bad touch had taken him wide. A more extreme example, you could square a pass to a player with an open goal, 1 yard out, one that should be scored 99/100 and if he takes a fresh air kick then it is an xG of 0 as technically he hasn't had a shot.

 

The other thing about xG is there are so many different ways of calculating it so no-one agrees. That FootyStats website has us averaging 0.62 per game. The source that owlprince has found above has us at 1.19 per game, and the bloke I follow on twitter that does xG (@xG_Data) has us at 1.11 per game (Charlton = 0.22, Donny = 0.7, Fleetwood = 2.11, Rotherham = 1.41). As you can see there is a massive disparity between the numbers.

 

The data I found was also from player stats if you look on the individual games on there. 1.11-1.19 actual goals scored is 1.25 so shows we are roughly performing to expectation in front of goal bannan’s goal probably tipping us into the position of just over performing. 
 

for me the problem with data and fans is that a lot of data readily available is poor especially as we move down the football league, .62 is obviously way off to anyone who has even watched the highlights but everyone on here is either discussing it like it is gospel or that xg is a load of rubbish. All the clubs and the bookies have good data and stats they use but it just isn’t available to us. 

 

stats are a fantastic way to analyse football but the data needs to be good and combined with our own knowledge to draw judgements on teams.  
 

got a couple of mates who work in football stats/analysis and they have also told me that opta tends to be very low quality. 

I’d say Wednesday are good for there place at top of the table so far but had the pens gone in could be different story. We are obviously strong all over the pitch and that is apparent just from watching them. Think when we hit stride we will be very hard to stop 

 

[owlprince]

7 hours ago, Morepork said:

It’s all part of the fun for me. But, it’s only a small part of the picture. Like @LondonOwl313 and @Emerson Thome have pointed out in their posts above there are lots of considerations, mitigating factors etc. For instance xG doesn’t/can’t measure the quality of the player an opportunity falls to.
 

Stats and the analysis of is here to stay though and I maintain it’s only going to become more dominant in the decision making process at clubs.

We can use individual xg to judge the quality of players tho. 
 

kane, haaland and mbappe for example all over performing against there xg. 
 

benteke, jolinton maupay all under perform under expectation as finishers 

[OxonOwl]

17 hours ago, tcuc3e said:

despite picking up points we've not actually been clicking on all cylinders yet

 

 

Well it is true and I think most people know it and know why but it is easy to just gaze at the table. Anyway it is a good thing to be getting these results when we are not playing particularly well.

 

 

[Sham67]

10 hours ago, Morepork said:

Good post @tcuc3e unfortunately wasted on some.

 

In essence, the stats in question say we’ve somewhat overachieved and over the course of the season it’ll be almost impossible to continue delivering the same number of points per game as we have in the last four matches without us improving in some way. Up front and in defence……

 

Anyone who is honest enough and objective enough to be able to assess our games so far would have to conclude we could easily be in a very different position so far. Before anyone jumps on that statement that’s not to say we’ve not done well. The margin between success and failure is fine and quite often decided by luck.

 

We could quite easily have come out of these first 4 games with 4 draws. We’ve conceded 2 penalties and just about as many shots on target as we’ve created. The stats tell us we’re not prolific chance creators based on the number of chances created and the quality of those chances, that’s a fair assessment given one of our goals was a Bannan 25 yard effort, the other a spill by a keeper from an effort he holds on 9 other days. They also suggest we’re not defensively as strong that we appear because we’re not a team that prevents opponents from even creating chances. 
 

Posters suggesting xG isn’t a valuable tool, imbecilic really. Comparing it to % possession also ridiculous. Possession is a useful tool but  as some teams set up to avoid possession it’s not comparable to xG. I’m not aware of any team other than the Blades who set up to avoid scoring…..

 

Posters suggesting bookmakers don’t use stats….also rounduns. The difference with bookies is they also factor in the intangibles and over the years have become incredibly adept at it. They 100% utilise stats and analysis though.

 

I’d urge people to watch the vid I posted higher in the thread to highlight to power of analysis and how results can kid you about what’s really going on under the hood.

The game is headed to a point where managers are just “man managers” analysis is going to determine who plays, what position they play in, etc, etc. It happens in US sports and as we see more US ownership here then expect these things to be implemented in our game, rightly or wrongly….

TBF, we have had two of the softest ever penalties given against us. As I said in another thread, if this keeps happening, someone is bound to score.  In the 3 home games I’ve been to, there has only been one occasion I thought the opposition would score. 

[Sultan_Pepper]

17 hours ago, Dan™ said:

 

Yeah, and it's even worse for us! Our expected goals against is 0.76 per game, also 18th in the division.

This is my main issue with the whole expected goals thing.

 

There was a very famous but if research back in the late seventies that stated that a large percentage of goals were conceded within 2 touches of the opposition last  the ball.

 

One interpretation at the time was that you should get the ball up the pitch with one big kick after your defence get it and long ball football was born and it set England back as a footballing nation by about 30 years.

 

Years later the same piece of research was looked at again but thought was given to areas of the pitch and the high press style of play the klopp and co play came to fruition.

 

In between those two times there was a conference where lots of managers like Rafa benitez were shown similar research based on player possessions since getting the ball rather than touches and the focus shifted for a few years with Brazil of all teams adopting a counterattacking style.

 

Expected goals is all the rage but I think it's looking in the wrong area, or at least it's being interpreted the wrong way. With expected goals George Graham's Arsenal side were rubbish, but they won loads. Mourinho's Chelsea were sub par but won the league.

 

Different styles of play date very badly under expected goals, particularly teams that cross the ball a lot.

 

With expected goals Chris Waddle could swing in a wonderful cross but if Hirst or Bright is inches away from getting their head on it it doesn't even register in the calculations but Darren Potter shooting over the roof of the stand from 40 yards does.

[OwlinOldham]

9 hours ago, Morepork said:

It’s all part of the fun for me. But, it’s only a small part of the picture. Like @LondonOwl313 and @Emerson Thome have pointed out in their posts above there are lots of considerations, mitigating factors etc. For instance xG doesn’t/can’t measure the quality of the player an opportunity falls to.
 

Stats and the analysis of is here to stay though and I maintain it’s only going to become more dominant in the decision making process at clubs.

 

I would hope that it is something we do use now to be fair, even if its just used to calculate our performance, strengths and weaknesses as a team (rather than looking an individual players ability).At least that way we could still be using it be in on the look out to find the right type of player to fill in a weakness that is then thrown up.

 

As an example, if the stats showed were were good at creating chances, but terrible at finishing these, we could then at least be on the look out for a player with a great abilty to finish chances above all other parts of his game. It would also be genuinely interesting to see where we were weak stats wise in the past, in relation to the signings that were made to fill them gaps. For example, signing Rhodes and players like David Jones.