Jump to content

State Of The Chart


Recommended Posts

the defensive effectiveness graph concerning us - ‘formidable’ and in top 10% - doesn’t ‘feel’ right when you look at where we are.

 

We have managed to draw the most in the league in matches played to date (10); that is between 1.6 times more (Portsmouth / Oxford with 6 draws) and 3.33 times more (Wigan with 3 draws) than the other teams around us on the graph....so how are we apparently in the top 10% of the league ??

 

These draws are why we aren’t higher up the table, where we’ve been in winning positions so chucked 2 points away (e.g Ipswich Cheltenham etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stats and Rotherham clearly doing something right, but I can't see the value of adjusting the real league table for and "expected goals" league table.  Perhaps going forward it's of some use, but retrospectively very little use (except Xg table changes over half the teams actual position, therefore showing detachment from realism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Manwë said:

Interesting stats and Rotherham clearly doing something right, but I can't see the value of adjusting the real league table for and "expected goals" league table.  Perhaps going forward it's of some use, but retrospectively very little use (except Xg table changes over half the teams actual position, therefore showing detachment from realism).

 

The explanation from the website itself:

 

The idea behind this is that it gives a potentially fairer assessment of how each team is doing, based on how a hypothetical average team would have fared from the chances they created and allowed. As the expected goals model isn’t perfect, we can’t use these tables to say with certainty that a given team has been lucky (or unlucky) but it’s safe to say that significant differences tend not to be sustainable over the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Silkstone Owl said:

the defensive effectiveness graph concerning us - ‘formidable’ and in top 10% - doesn’t ‘feel’ right when you look at where we are.

 

We have managed to draw the most in the league in matches played to date (10); that is between 1.6 times more (Portsmouth / Oxford with 6 draws) and 3.33 times more (Wigan with 3 draws) than the other teams around us on the graph....so how are we apparently in the top 10% of the league ??

 

These draws are why we aren’t higher up the table, where we’ve been in winning positions so chucked 2 points away (e.g Ipswich Cheltenham etc)

 

Only Rotherham and Wigan have conceded fewer goals than us, so we must be doing something right defensively. 

 

We're currently facing fewer than 11 shots per game, which is the 5th lowest in the division, and it takes more than 11 shots on average to score against us, which is slightly behind just Rotherham and Wycombe so far.

 

Combining those two factors puts us in the top 10% of the division for defensive effectiveness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very interesting thankyou

 

I just can't wrap my brain around with our players why we find it so difficult to break the opposites down

 

it just seems like we have a much more talented group of players but we don't really see the rewards from that- I'm putting it down to the manager and tactics than the players 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ian said:

Goals for…goals against and points

 

they are the stats you need to concern yourself with

 

the rest are just noise

 

11 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Yeah alright, grandad.

 

🙄

 

I don't think your dismissive comment of "Yea alright, grandad" was really called for.

 

At the end ofthe day @Ianis absolutely right.

 

It doesn't matter how many pretty graphs and charts you post on here showing "attacking or defending effectiveness""

or "expected goals for or against" etc, the only chart that matters is the league table.

 

So @Ian is correct:-  Goals for, goals against and points are the only stats that really matter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldtawnyowl said:

I don't think your dismissive comment of "Yea alright, grandad" was really called for.

 

At the end ofthe day @Ianis absolutely right.

 

It doesn't matter how many pretty graphs and charts you post on here showing "attacking or defending effectiveness""

or "expected goals for or against" etc, the only chart that matters is the league table.

 

So @Ian is correct:-  Goals for, goals against and points are the only stats that really matter.

 

Soz, dad.

 

:duntmatter:

 

Seriously, though - we get that kind of inane comment every time anybody posts any kind of statistical analysis on here.

 

Nobody's claiming that the league table is anything other than the most important metric by which teams are judged. And for those who are happy to focus solely on the headline figures, that's fine.

 

But for those who want to dig a bit deeper and look at the game in a bit more detail, these kind of charts offer a simple, yet interesting enough way to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im with the OP on this. Its a guide to what we need to do to improve. Looking at another stat site FBRef, i came to the same conclusion and started a topic saying we need strikers not defenders. This backs that up.

Rotherham are miles in front of any other team and will probably win the league by a distance. Unless other teams improve.

One thing i do think is that we are (or were) improving while some teams might stagnate or fall away.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Soz, dad

 

Seriously, though - we get that kind of inane comment every time anybody posts any kind of statistical analysis on here.

 

Nobody's claiming that the league table is anything other than the most important metric by which teams are judged. And for those who are happy to focus solely on the headline figures, that's fine.

 

But for those who want to dig a bit deeper and look at the game in a bit more detail, these kind of charts offer a simple, yet interesting enough way to do so.

 

Again the dismissive comment.

 

You do know what "inane" means?

 

I don't consider that preferring to concentrate on the headline figures is "stupid, imbecilic,unintelligent" (definition of "inane" according to the dictionary).

 

Anyway, I prefer to go along with Bill Shankley who said "Football is a simple game.............

Edited by oldtawnyowl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, oldtawnyowl said:

Again the dismissive comment.

 

You do know what "inane" means?

 

I don't consider that preferring to concentrate on the headline figures is "stupid, imbecilic,unintelligent" (definition of "inane" according to the dictionary).

 

Anyway, I prefer to go along with Bill Shankley who said "Football is a simple game.............

 

Yes, I know what 'inane' means, ta.

 

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...