Leeds are pants

[westcoastcanary 173]

1 hour ago, FenwayFrank said:

So how is the quality of this chance? ..........

When someone calls that "a bad miss" or "missing a sitter", or describes it as "easier to score than miss", or says, as Harry Rednapp once famously said of a blatant miss by Darren Bent "(My wife) Sandra could have scored that", they are simply attaching an imprecise value to what xG seeks to evaluate more precisely. If your opinion is that there is no way of attaching more precise values to the quality of chances, then sorry FF, you are simply wrong.

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

You’re starting to sound like Trump 😉

[Nuff Said 5,141]

1 hour ago, FenwayFrank said:

You’re starting to sound like Trump 😉

There's no need for that sort of language 😱

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Agree with westcoast on this completely.

 

Fenway Frank - I’m not sure if xGs caters for quality of player, but I would suggest the wider implications of this aren’t significant – i.e. a good chance in the prem would still be a good chance even in Sunday league because the quality of football is proportional (GK not as likely to save it). It may be true that quality sides have a higher goals / xG ratio due to the better players but I’m unsure on this.

 

Personally I think that the xG stat is very useful, it gives a great indication of performance levels, it allows us to look at the most important factors that ARE within the control of the team’s performance – I.e. the number and significance of the chances created (and conceded).

 

Whether a chance is converted or not, is up to the individual (striker and GK), with other factors (i.e. position, no. of defenders etc.) which also have a bearing. This means in any one case, anything can happen. With this huge element of chance in mind, I completely favour judging the team on performance levels and not the end result, because that's all they can really control collectively.

 

This is why I like xGs. The stat is calculated based on historical conversion rates (factoring in position of the ball, player, GK, no. of defenders) which means the number of likely goals in a game can be ‘predicted’ with some degree of accuracy. Just take a look at the graph here which has mapped goals over xGs in the prem – and shows a very clear trend:

 

https://understat.com/

 

There’s also a really interesting prem table on this website which can be filtered by expected points (based on xGs). There are a few changes but generally its pretty accurate, certainly worth a look:

 

https://understat.com/league/EPL

 

As a stand alone stat, I would certainly favour this over possession or shots because it takes into account so many different metrics.

 

As a poker player I know you should play in a way that maximises your % chance of winning in the long-run, even if it does not pay off in that particularly hand (although it feels like the percentages always f**k me over). So this stat makes a lot of sense to me. That said, I’m mythed as to why some fans seem to reject all stats as meaningless – is it the people who hated maths at school?

[westcoastcanary 173]

3 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

 ......... I’m mythed as to why some fans seem to reject all stats as meaningless – is it the people who hated maths at school?

I remember listening to a Radio 5 Live commentary with Alan Green commentating and (I think) Mark Lawrenson providing the "expert" analysis. Green made some disparaging comment about statistics applied to football, and how football analytics had become a growing trend. This prompted Lawrenson to say "It's nothing new. We had football analytics at Liverpool even in my day. Back then though it was called the manager." I think a lot of people believe that there's really nothing that your own eyes can't reveal to you, especially if you are a long term season ticket holder and actually go to Carrow Road! 😉

[splendidrush 700]

Lawrenson... I seem to remember that he predicted that we were 9 months from League 2 when we were relegated in 2009. Experts, you gotta love 'em. Ultimately you can look at all the data you want and still make it support your argument.  Experts and data told us that Liverpool would beat Wimbledon. That Leicester couldn't possibly win the Premiership and that  Leeds should win the League.... we'll have to wait and see on the last one. 

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

12 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

That said, I’m mythed as to why some fans seem to reject all stats as meaningless – is it the people who hated maths at school?

I haven’t rejected all stats and I did ok at maths thanks. You and west coast have made quite a few assumptions there, or should I call them expected comments 😉

 

[westcoastcanary 173]

6 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

I haven’t rejected all stats and I did ok at maths thanks. You and west coast have made quite a few assumptions there, or should I call them expected comments 😉

 

Assumptions? Hank was puzzled and simply speculated as to a possible answer to his question. I was simply repeating something posted repeatedly in threads on this forum. Not an assumption in sight in either case. 

[Mr Apples 1,320]

All stats are meaningless...according to 78% of people polled. 😂

Apples

[westcoastcanary 173]

11 hours ago, splendidrush said:

Lawrenson... I seem to remember that he predicted that we were 9 months from League 2 when we were relegated in 2009. Experts, you gotta love 'em. Ultimately you can look at all the data you want and still make it support your argument.  Experts and data told us that Liverpool would beat Wimbledon. That Leicester couldn't possibly win the Premiership and that  Leeds should win the League.... we'll have to wait and see on the last one. 

No set of data has ever told anybody that Liverpool would beat Wimbledon, or Leicester couldn't possibly win the Premier League, or that Leeds will win the Championship this season. And no genuine expert would ever claim any set of data did, any more than any health expert will tell you that if you give up smoking you will definitely avoid lung cancer. Actual outcomes are influenced by more factors than any data set reflects, many beyond the ken of any analyst and others beyond the control of any active agent. What football analytics can do (as Hank says in his post) is provide evidence as to whether or not you are maximising your chances of achieving your objective (be it winning as many matches as you can or becoming the season's Champions in your league). Fortune good or ill, in the sense of things beyond the control of those involved, plays a huge part in the outcome of any match, so great a part as to render the odds virtually evens for one team winning rather than the other. As one famous continental coach whose name I forget said, the task of the coach is simply to try to minimise the opportunities for fortune to intervene in the opponent's favour (hence e.g the importance of possession). In reality, no different from ordinary life where any sensible person does what he/she can, often with the help of statistics, to weight the odds in their favour and leave as little as they can to luck.

[splendidrush 700]

You're defeating your own argument here. Bookies are in the business of making money,  they use stats to work out the odds and offer prices accordingly. Liverpool were favourites to beat Wimbledon based on the stats available,  just because you can't find them doesn't mean they don't exist. Going back to your claim that Leeds have players to come back from injury, I would suggest that as they are currently top,these players are going to struggle to get back in and even if they do,they're unlikely to improve them. 

[westcoastcanary 173]

16 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

You're defeating your own argument here. Bookies are in the business of making money,  they use stats to work out the odds and offer prices accordingly. Liverpool were favourites to beat Wimbledon based on the stats available,  just because you can't find them doesn't mean they don't exist. Going back to your claim that Leeds have players to come back from injury, I would suggest that as they are currently top,these players are going to struggle to get back in and even if they do,they're unlikely to improve them. 

Nothing I've said is about bookies and their betting odds; what I'm referring to are the real probabilities of different outcomes. Of course Liverpool were favourites to beat Wimbledon, not because of any system of bookies's odds, but because, setting strokes of good or ill fortune aside, Liverpool were better than Wimbledon on every reasonable measure (in reality not so much better as to make Wimbledon's FA Cup win a giant killing act; in the league games between the sides that season, the match at Plough Lane was drawn 1:1, while at Anfield Liverpool were 2:1 winners). 

But as Hank said in his post, those measures are to do with factors which maximise the % chance of winning in the longer run and are consistent with any outcome in the case of any individual match; thus Liverpool at that time were serial First Division Champions while Wimbledon never reached such heights.

[splendidrush 700]

So how do 'reasonable measures ' differentiate from stats?

[Ramrod 258]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Leeds overtaken by West Brom over Christmas. 

[nutty nigel 7,536]

They're still top in the secret lemonade drinker's head because these late goals aren't reliable. Apparently......

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

Beat me to it Nutty, as soon as we scored my thoughts went to the slightly arrogant sounding Mr. White. It seemed a reliable enough goal to me. If we think it's coming, it probably is.

[westcoastcanary 173]

3 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

......... as soon as we scored my thoughts went to the slightly arrogant sounding Mr. White.

Is it really so arrogant to come onto a thread referring dismissively to your promotion-chasing team as “pants”? Why not give credit where it’s due; Leeds are assured of first or second place at Christmas, well done to them.

Edited December 22, 2018 by westcoastcanary
Typo

[splendidrush 700]

... so are we, well done to us!

[westcoastcanary 173]

On 21/12/2018 at 15:55, splendidrush said:

So how do 'reasonable measures ' differentiate from stats?

I used the expression "reasonable measures" in that post because the kind of stats available nowadays simply didn't exist in 1988. The measures I was referring to were things like the respective league records of the two clubs, quality of first team players and reserves, experience and record of the respective managers, etc.

[splendidrush 700]

The problem with 'reasonable measures ' and stats is that they are based on what's gone before.  No one expected us to be top because last year we were 'pants ' that's why your stats can only,  as you said predict likely outcomes.  Personally I'd rather turn up at the game, support my Team and hope that they win regardless of what the experts say. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

Pressure is on Leeds today, lose a tough match away and they will start being in reach of WBA and the chasing pack.

[sonyc 5,519]

I had predicted an AV win ahead of today. Think it will be feisty actually. Lots to play for ...for both teams.

 

Yet, I expect Leeds to do what they normally do and if successful they could nick that statistically important first goal (anyone else noticed?). They tend to adopt an extremely high pressing, quick and urgent game in the first 25 then they naturally slow down. Whereas we play a more measured passing game. We come into life much later. I'm not sure this is strategic re. Leeds but wouldn't be surprised. They are an extremely dangerous team.

I liked Bielsa's comment about us. He said we were a very competent  and expansive team and our early season form was not a good guide to how good we are. He was right and i reckon he is a very good analyser of the game. It's why also, I believe us and Leeds have the best managers in the championship. Hopefully, this keeps us in the top two.

[Daz Sparks 1,154]

Nothing to do this afternoon, so will put my feet up with a cup of tea and hope for a Villa win, they must be up for the game, as 3 pts will take them up to 7th. This league is as tight as remember for a good few seasons, let's hope we can get some clear air between us and 3rd in next half a dozen games.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

So Leeds drew then....

[Capt. Pants 4,234]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

So Leeds drew then....

According to some on here.

[westcoastcanary 173]

10 hours ago, splendidrush said:

The problem with 'reasonable measures ' and stats is that they are based on what's gone before.  No one expected us to be top because last year we were 'pants ' that's why your stats can only,  as you said predict likely outcomes.  Personally I'd rather turn up at the game, support my Team and hope that they win regardless of what the experts say. 

The people surprised by us this season wouldn't be so surprised if they studied the stats. As sonyc notes a few posts up, Bielsa had us correctly weighed up before Leeds came to Carrow Road. Yes he would have watched videos of our opening few games, but he and his analytics staff would have looked in detail at our stats and identified exactly what we were doing right and where the weaknesses were. In the event, they exploited the weaknesses and individual mistakes handed them an undeservedly wide margin of victory. 

[westcoastcanary 173]

@splendidrush

The point I think you are missing about stats is that they don't simply record what has happened so far; the ones that are worth taking note of also provide insight into why it has happened. If you think about smoking and lung cancer, that there was a statistical correlation was known for a long time, but the causal connexions remained unidentified. Forget about "experts"; wouldn't you yourself like to develop a better understanding of why the team you support is getting the results it is? 

[splendidrush 700]

Call me a philistine westcoast, but I go, when I can,  to be entertained, to support my Team,  nothing more, nothing less. If we're winning I'll enjoy the ride,  if not,  I'll still turn up in the hope that we can turn it around and start a new run of form. There's no point worrying about what may or may not happen. In my 40 odd years of following Norwich we've been promoted 8 times ( I think) and relegated as many, it's never been boring  but I've never had any influence on results apart from cheering them on.  So why worry about stats, they pay other people to take care of that.

[Bitesyerlegs 1]

On 23/12/2018 at 15:41, nutty nigel said:

So Leeds drew then....

...........clearly top of the league old boy.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

2 hours ago, Bitesyerlegs said:

...........clearly top of the league old boy.

Not according to your old mate the secret lemonade drinker. He reckoned late goals don't count the same...

Anyway, Norman Hunter was a ****. He actually carped himself when he saw the late great Trevor Hockey heading his way...