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.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] 'Enough with the data obsession, in the real world only goals for and against count'
- Thread starter Wozza
- Start date
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.
Ask Jimmyboy who insinuated it was one of three stats he give a shit about. Despite the irrelevant xG having a much tigher connection to league position than possession.
In what way is this relevant to anything whatsoever?
Having to change definitions because people are too THICK to understand what it means is simply dumbing down. And football without goals is pointless. Literally.
On the plus side, we are out-performing on xGA too.....Palace were only expected to get 0.23 and we gave them 2.0
Oh......
Oh......
Farehamseagull
Solly March Fan Club
Factually, literally, you're wrong, if a game finishes goalless, both teams get a point!
And in seriousness, the goals don't just come from out of nowhere do they? They come from a passage of play beforehand, that is why possession, xG and other related stats are very important.
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.
You don't do irony do you? Whoosh.
schmunk
"Members"
...but the history websites will include xG too.
And they would all get stomped today due to the advent of sports science.
History books... will you be able to go to the bookstore around the corner, take off your hat and say "I'd to buy this lovely book" with the bookdealer replying "yes sir, that will be one farthing" or will you be required to go to a phone booth and order it?
Sites like fbref.com and whoscored.com are your modern day history books and they contain all kinds of information. Your grandkids are not going to order a book with a list of results.
Farehamseagull
Solly March Fan Club
More so than you I would suggest.
No kid would ever forget if they scored.
Interesting to compare kids sports with elite football though. I'm all for it. There should be more threads about "did the boys have fun out there?" and less "what do we think about the result / performance?". I'm in.
Well that's just dandy.
When we go down, what I'll do for all those gloating Palace fans who turn up here to take the piss is quote our superior possession and xG stats and send them off to whoscored or squaka to prove it.
That'll shut them up.
No you should do it your own way. "We lost but the boys had fun and got icecream and soda afterwards".
RossyG
Well-known member
- Dec 20, 2014
- 2,630
That's what the "well I'd rather play well and go down" crowd are saying.
Seems healthy to me. Although I'm in the "playing shit is no guarantee to win more" camp.
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,158
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 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.
Last edited:
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.
RossyG
Well-known member
- Dec 20, 2014
- 2,630
Siri, what does a straw man argument look like?
disgruntled h blocker
Active member
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.
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.
"It worked in the 70s"