[Albion] 'Enough with the data obsession, in the real world only goals for and against count'

[Guinness Boy]

Terrible idea. Think we should either go with Rossy Gs 1970s strategy of signing up some bloke who had great success in his pub team or GB:s strategy of signing up some kid with early-onset dementia.

Vardy pretty much came from a pub team.

There's quite a big difference between pointing out that the game can be played for the simple joy of it and wanting an 8 year old up front. And who mentioned dementia.

Then again, maybe there is no simple joy in playing the game somewhere where it's too dark and too cold to do anything useful for half the year.

 

[RossyG]

"It worked in the 70s"

Show me where I said we should sign up a pub team manager.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

As a fully paid up member of the data nerd society, I love stats. Its also the secret of Tony Bloom's success so should really be embraced by all Albion fans.

That said, our analytics team must be scratching their heads when trying to deciphier our numbers.

It seems our possession stats are all counter intuitive.

<50% possession in 10 games
4 wins
3 draws
3 losses
Average points per game 1.5
Average shots per game 11
Average Goals per game 0.8

>50% possession in 16 games
1 wins
8 draws
7 losses
Average points per game 0.69
Average shots per game 15
Average Goals per game 1.12

>60% possession in 4 games
0 wins
2 draws
2 losses
Average points per game 0.5
Average shots per game 20
Average Goals per game 0.75

So in games when we have the least possession and the fewest shots we earn the greatest number of points.

But the one factor that makes sense of the numbers is that all the other teams, outside the tradition top six, have a Goals per shot average of 0.09 or roughly a goal every 11 shots.

Brightons Goals per shot average is 0.06, which equates to a goal every 16 shots.

The really worrying thing about that stat is that we have only manged 16 shots in 8 matches out of 26 this season.

Thankfully, for all of Graham Potter's talk of not wanting new signings and wanting to develop the players he has, (presumably bullshit aimed at not to damaging our strikers already low confidence) you can be sure that behind the scenes Tony Bloom and his army of data nerds will be scouring the planet for our next undervalued star striker.

I’ve said it in another post, the stats bare out teams setting up like we’re ManCity - who themselves struggled to break down a solid looking WBA at the Etihad, their last dropped points! It is difficult to score against a team with no ambition themselves, hence it’s been a go to tactical model for some managers as you do fluke a win because the other team is committing so much forward looking to score.

Against the likes of Leeds, Spurs and Liverpool we played teams with equal or more ambition than us, therefore we could counter and all 3 goals in those games were quick counters from one end to the other. You can’t counter attack a team that’s not attacking.

We’ve found solutions to create a variety of chances, we have just got to start taking them.

 

[Swansman]

Vardy pretty much came from a pub team.

There's quite a big difference between pointing out that the game can be played for the simple joy of it and wanting an 8 year old up front. And who mentioned dementia.

Then again, maybe there is no simple joy in playing the game somewhere where it's too dark and too cold to do anything useful for half the year.

Yes. You said it in a context where you were arguing against someone asking why clubs have sports science teams if its as useless as some of you seem to believe. You switch freely between "the results is what matters" and "joy is what matters" depending on what suits you - if we mix the two, it would suggest that "the joy of leaving all the stats/data crap out" would also result in better results, correct me (and elaborate) if I'm wrong?

Or what was really the meaning behind the whole insinuation that "sports science sucks because kids ask their parents after games if they scored or not" thingy?

 

[Stato]

There are a lot of pundits and journalists trying to use Brighton as a stick to beat Xg/Xp with. Our failure to turn dominance into results enables them to wave us at anyone who cares about stats and say 'Look, it's goals that count. Not your maths!' As if everyone who watches football doesn't already know this. What they are generally saying is 'I've done this job for years without having to understand this stuff and I don't see why I should have to learn anything new.'

They fail to realise/acknowledge that the only reason that people are talking about Xg etc. in connection with Brighton's results this season is because they are a massive deviation from the mean. We are not proof for the pointlessness of a modern statistical approach, we are actually the exception that proves the rule. Our anomaly just points to possible areas for further study.

 

[Swansman]

Just like in every other thread about stats/data it basically comes down to:

One set of people who have decided that the team/manager/players suck and therefore really wants stats/data to be bollocks, especially if it indicates that the team/manager/players are doing some things well.

One set of people who have decided that the team/manager/players are doing most things right and therefore wants stats/data to be interesting, especially if it indicates that the team/manager/players are doing some things well.

The difference between these sets of people is that pretty much everyone working in professional sports agree with the second set of people that stats and data are useful tools, hence every ****ing club gathering and using it.

 

[Farehamseagull]

There are a lot of pundits and journalists trying to use Brighton as a stick to beat Xg/Xp with. Our failure to turn dominance into results enables them to wave us at anyone who cares about stats and say 'Look, it's goals that count. Not your maths!' As if everyone who watches football doesn't already know this. What they are generally saying is 'I've done this job for years without having to understand this stuff and I don't see why I should have to learn anything new.'

They fail to realise/acknowledge that the only reason that people are talking about Xg etc. in connection with Brighton's results this season is because they are a massive deviation from the mean. We are not proof for the pointlessness of a modern statistical approach, we are actually the exception that proves the rule. Our anomaly just points to possible areas for further study.

Yes, great post.

The anti xG thing is a staple of classic British 'real football man' talk at the moment. Along with spitting and diving being worse than murder. 'The game's gone' etc.

 

[Icy Gull]

Becoming tiring this.

Just because we are not getting the results, doesn't mean that the stats are irrelevant and should be ignored.

The stats demonstrate that we have a great team that is doing everything right, but are missing one crucial component - players who can stick it in the back of the net consistently.

We could start hoofing it up the field, bringing down our xG exponentially, but if you think this would improve results then you are a numpty. We would STILL lack natural goalscorers if we did this, and we'd probably go down.

We are doing everything right. We just lack confident goal scorers. Whatever you believe this is the fact of the matter.

Well I’m pleased it makes you happy but it just grinds my gears

I don’t need stats to reinforce what my eyes tell me and these stats are just being picked up by neutrals and nerds to exacerbate the problem we know we have. Far too much being made of it imo. Do I care if non Albion fans think we should be higher up the table and making out, by inference, that Albion have problems that can somehow be solved by this bollocks?

Yes, I’m a dinosaur and I don’t play football computer games either

 

[Swansman]

There are a lot of pundits and journalists trying to use Brighton as a stick to beat Xg/Xp with. Our failure to turn dominance into results enables them to wave us at anyone who cares about stats and say 'Look, it's goals that count. Not your maths!' As if everyone who watches football doesn't already know this. What they are generally saying is 'I've done this job for years without having to understand this stuff and I don't see why I should have to learn anything new.'

They fail to realise/acknowledge that the only reason that people are talking about Xg etc. in connection with Brighton's results this season is because they are a massive deviation from the mean. We are not proof for the pointlessness of a modern statistical approach, we are actually the exception that proves the rule. Our anomaly just points to possible areas for further study.

Indeed.

Majority of those journalists are soon retired though. Until then I'll just respond to their "this is new and I dont get or why other people get it, so its useless" take by mailing or perhaps faxing a picture Schelotto to them.

 

[Icy Gull]

Just like in every other thread about stats/data it basically comes down to:

One set of people who have decided that the team/manager/players suck and therefore really wants stats/data to be bollocks, especially if it indicates that the team/manager/players are doing some things well.

One set of people who have decided that the team/manager/players are doing most things right and therefore wants stats/data to be interesting, especially if it indicates that the team/manager/players are doing some things well.

The difference between these sets of people is that pretty much everyone working in professional sports agree with the second set of people that stats and data are useful tools, hence every ****ing club gathering and using it.

Our manager doesn’t seem that impressed with it, which is good enough for me. Of course it’s something of interest, nothing more, nothing is going to change because of some facts. Oh that it could but as it doesn’t, and can’t imo I’ll not take much notice.

If our forwards and midfielders could use it to make them less shit at shooting it would be brilliant. Does anyone really think it could?

 

[Barham's tash]

Any truth we’ve petitioned the league to change our name to xG and Hove Albion with a spreadsheet as our badge?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

There are a lot of pundits and journalists trying to use Brighton as a stick to beat Xg/Xp with. Our failure to turn dominance into results enables them to wave us at anyone who cares about stats and say 'Look, it's goals that count. Not your maths!' As if everyone who watches football doesn't already know this. What they are generally saying is 'I've done this job for years without having to understand this stuff and I don't see why I should have to learn anything new.'

They fail to realise/acknowledge that the only reason that people are talking about Xg etc. in connection with Brighton's results this season is because they are a massive deviation from the mean. We are not proof for the pointlessness of a modern statistical approach, we are actually the exception that proves the rule. Our anomaly just points to possible areas for further study.

I get your point but it is a rather sweeping generalization. Not rating XG as a worthwhile measure is not an indicator for being a dinosaur or lacking understanding. I have used Maths all of my professional career. I am pretty well qualified in statistics and probability. I do not fault the theory but I do question people who over interpret the results and then search out unbelievers in order to gratify their superiority complex. XG is an interesting tool, that’s all.

 

[Swansman]

Our manager doesn’t seem that impressed with it, which is good enough for me. Of course it’s something of interest, nothing more, nothing is going to change because of some facts. Oh that it could but as it doesn’t, and can’t imo I’ll not take much notice.

If our forwards and midfileders could use it to make them less shit at shooting it would be brilliant. Does anyone really think it could?

Why would make you say he is not impressed with it? He said he doesnt really care about xG, he said nothing about not caring about data and statistics.

When ÖFK did their first big sale, he had the option to either reinvest the money in new players or in data analysis (filming every training, measuring everything that out there on the pitch) and went for the latter. xG is not useful for a coach, but lots of data is.

 

[Icy Gull]

Why would make you say he is not impressed with it? He said he doesnt really care about xG, he said nothing about not caring about data and statistics.

When ÖFK did their first big sale, he had the option to either reinvest the money in new players or in data analysis (filming every training, measuring everything that out there on the pitch) and went for the latter. xG is not useful for a coach, but lots of data is.

Data, yes of course, you can use that. What can you use XG for, that you don’t already know?

One is of great benefit the other is for nerds and journalists not footballers and managers...imo

 

[Audax]

Fun? Playing a GAME? Actually getting enjoyment over a sport instead of ******* over a spreadsheet?

No kid ever came off the pitch in a grass roots game to ask any other stat other than if he'd scored.

I bet you some kids do come off the pitch and start thinking about stats. Assuming anyone is actually gathering any for them to look at. OK I wasn't a kid at the time, and it was cricket (where stats are easier to come by), but in my early 20's I built my own Excel spreadsheet from scratch that tracked battering and bowling stats for the indoor cricket teams I played with. Why? Because I have a brain that likes numbers, I have a competitive nature when it comes to sports, and the stats I developed helped me to understand my own game better. The one thing I couldn't track very well was fielding stats, but at least I knew that when another player with pretty much identical batting and bowling stats as mine got picked for representative games it was because he was a better fielder than me and that was the area I needed to work on. Without the stats I'd built, I wouldn't have known my batting and bowling were on par and therefore may not have understood as clearly where I was falling short.

The fact of the matter is that xG's or whatever they are called are not as detailed to make direct comparisons. How is the xG calculated? It should be calculated in regards to "who was near or in the box...what their effective scoring rate is" instead of just assuming that if you get the ball in the box or have a certain number of points in the box that increases the xG. In addition things like historical touches in box vs score rate should also be included, so for example Arsenal's xG under Wenger must have been off the scale, but it's the same with us - if we had Jamie Vardy in the box or David Lee would it still have the same xG value?

It's all about false comparatives but the statto's or psuedo-stattos love to trawl over statistics. Reminds me sitting in the South Stand once and a lad in front of me referring to an oppositions striker rating on Fifa.

I work with data scientists. xG was developed by data scientists. You and I might not know the specifics of what goes into the calculations, but one thing I will bet my house on: the xG rating of any specific shot taken will be pretty darn accurate based on the historical data available. The sorts of analysis data scientists do gets pretty deep and involved and the amount of historic data they'll have used to develop the metric (which evolves over time as more data comes in) means they'll have pretty strong confidence in the quality of the metric.

Our manager doesn’t seem that impressed with it, which is good enough for me. Of course it’s something of interest, nothing more, nothing is going to change because of some facts. Oh that it could but as it doesn’t, and can’t imo I’ll not take much notice.

If our forwards and midfielders could use it to make them less shit at shooting it would be brilliant. Does anyone really think it could?

My take on what Potter said is that he's not interested in the metric when it comes to looking at the table. Which is absolutely right. But he also said "those other metrics give you some information about other things around your performance." Which is an understated way of saying that he actually does care about those metrics, just not as much as the points on the table metric.

 

[Swansman]

Data, yes of course, you can use that. What can you use XG for?

One is of great benefit the other is for nerds....imo

Very little other than showing "we are actually creating chances", which is something most of us are already aware of but its... nice (I suppose?) to be able to back it up with numbers. Its useful in portraying chance creation. For a coach its pretty much useless except in some circumstances - like if you have a player that repeatedly is taking shots in angles and situations where its very unlikely to score, it will be pretty evident through xG and you can tell him "dont do that shit, do this instead".

Personally I dont think xG is anywhere near as exciting as a lot of other data. Data showing how often Brighton win the ball within 5 seconds of Maupay pressuring their defender or how often Tariq Lamptey beats his defenders, things like that make me hard. xG... not so much.

 

[Icy Gull]

I bet you some kids do come off the pitch and start thinking about stats. Assuming anyone is actually gathering any for them to look at. OK I wasn't a kid at the time, and it was cricket (where stats are easier to come by), but in my early 20's I built my own Excel spreadsheet from scratch that tracked battering and bowling stats for the indoor cricket teams I played with. Why? Because I have a brain that likes numbers, I have a competitive nature when it comes to sports, and the stats I developed helped me to understand my own game better. The one thing I couldn't track very well was fielding stats, but at least I knew that when another player with pretty much identical batting and bowling stats as mine got picked for representative games it was because he was a better fielder than me and that was the area I needed to work on. Without the stats I'd built, I wouldn't have known my batting and bowling were on par and therefore may not have understood as clearly where I was falling short.




I work with data scientists. xG was developed by data scientists. You and I might not know the specifics of what goes into the calculations, but one thing I will bet my house on: the xG rating of any specific shot taken will be pretty darn accurate based on the historical data available. The sorts of analysis data scientists do gets pretty deep and involved and the amount of historic data they'll have used to develop the metric (which evolves over time as more data comes in) means they'll have pretty strong confidence in the quality of the metric.




My take on what Potter said is that he's not interested in the metric when it comes to looking at the table. Which is absolutely right. But he also said "those other metrics give you some information about other things around your performance." Which is an understated way of saying that he actually does care about those metrics, just not as much as the points on the table metric.

I know I am really weak at anything to do with maths so I won’t be arguing with you!

 

[bn1&bn3 Albion]

Fun? Playing a GAME? Actually getting enjoyment over a sport instead of ******* over a spreadsheet?

No kid ever came off the pitch in a grass roots game to ask any other stat other than if he'd scored.

How many kids have you worked with who went on to play professional football?

 

[Swansman]

I work with data scientists. xG was developed by data scientists. You and I might not know the specifics of what goes into the calculations, but one thing I will bet my house on: the xG rating of any specific shot taken will be pretty darn accurate based on the historical data available. The sorts of analysis data scientists do gets pretty deep and involved and the amount of historic data they'll have used to develop the metric (which evolves over time as more data comes in) means they'll have pretty strong confidence in the quality of the metric.

While not a huge xG sucker, it is remarkable and interesting how often it turns out to be quite accurate in the long run.

Two good examples: last year Mason Greenwood scored a lot of goals but had low xG. People said "well shows xG doesnt matter, Greenwood will keep scoring!"... and look at him now.

And Liverpool. Last season they were 22 points above their xP (expected points) and plenty of people said "well shows xP doesnt matter, Liverpool will be in the top 2 next season!"... and look at them now.

While these are just two examples, it shows that while xG is perhaps not useful it often signals what is actually happening and thus in the long run is likely to come reward you or bite you in the ass. Hopefully for Brighton, the "reward" comes in the upcoming games and the next season!

 

[Baldseagull]

Sorry for being a stuck record but the mis-use of "literally" really grinds my gears. "Everything" on a football pitch includes finishing. End of.

Unfortunately, literally has been misused to the extent that it no longer just means literally, the dictionary says it also can be used for emphasis, which literally (for emphasis) blew my mind when I found out.