[Albion] How good are we really ?

[Audax]

Maybe it's a myth over 3 or 4 games. Not 30 though.

Even over 30 it can lie. Someone else shared this in another thread. It's worth sharing again, and worth watching if you haven't already:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy2vc9lW5r0

 

[Uter]

A team playing 30 games and having an equal chance of winning, drawing or losing every game would expect to have 40 points. But the possible points distribution would look something like this:



Note how wide the distribution is. The key point is 30 games is not very many to draw firm conclusions about a team's strength.

This was produced by running simulations, not by calculating exact probabilities, hence it doesn't quite peak at 40.

 

[FatSuperman]

Maybe it's a myth over 3 or 4 games. Not 30 though.

Any game where so few points / goals can win it means that it is heavily influenced by chance - the table lies every season, often very significantly.

Of course, you can tip the scales in your favour by having the absolute best squad, but that doesn't guarantee you anything - as Liverpool are proving to us this season.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Professional gamblers would disagree. The League table does lie, plenty. It tells the truth about what has already happened, but it lies an awful lot about *how* what happened actually happened, and in particular it lies a lot about the underlying sustainability of what happened continuing to happen.

That's why all the clubs invest heavily in looking at a whole lot of metrics that go way beyond what gets presented on the league table. It's why, for example, Potter will be retained as long as we can keep him whereas any sensible owner would get rid of Bruce ASAP. League table says us and Newcastle are much the same ... the metrics that pro gamblers look at tell a very different story. As it stands at the moment, the underlying data suggests we're a team that will be looking up the table sooner rather than later, while for Newcastle it suggests they're sliding towards a relegation battle they'll struggle to escape from.

But that's not the league table lying, is it? I don't ever remember the team at the top after 38 games not being crowned champions, or the three at the bottom not getting relegated.

The bulk of my post referred to metrics data (such as big chances missed) which in my opinion - doesn't turn a lie into the truth, but is more a case of putting some flesh on the bones.

In terms of your point about sustainability, there are a number of owners out there that aren't too interested in football and they treat the club they own as an investment, or a marketing / PR tool. All they care about is staying in the Premier League and they work on a season to season basis, hiring and firing and throwing big money at strikers as they go. Nobody particularly enjoys the brand of football that the likes of Bruce, Hodgson or Allardyce producers, and those guys have won virtually no big domestic trophies, but they've had plenty of work for decades because of their ability to deliver positive short-term results.

 

[Terry Butcher Tribute Act]

Any game where so few points / goals can win it means that it is heavily influenced by chance - the table lies every season, often very significantly.

Of course, you can tip the scales in your favour by having the absolute best squad, but that doesn't guarantee you anything - as Liverpool are proving to us this season.

You (and others on here) seem to have forgotten that they key measure as to how good a side is is their results. Not the gambling/Statistician outlook.

Stats paint a picture. But the main aim of the game is 3 points

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[blue-shifted]

I also believe the league table lies ... with respect for indicating what is likely to happen in the future anyway. For example, last season it lied that Sheff U were an upper mid table team. This season it's lying about West Ham. (It's lied about Palace for about 4 years, however i'm confident this won't always be the case).

In football, where wild swings of fortune (Palace WBA etc) can mean that a manifestly poor team can mug off a far better team, this can happen. In higher scoring sports, this is far less likely to be the case. In Rugby and Basketball, the league table will almost certainly not lie.

I also think Goal Difference is a better indicator of performance. Ie, it's not something abstract and arguable like XG. It measures consistency, which is what a league is all about.

I think we are about the 12th best team

 

[BeHereNow]

I’d say about 11th or 12th.

Should’ve beaten Palace...twice, but they are a ridiculously lucky team.

We’ve had more ridiculous VAR calls go against us than for us, Manchester United, Southampton, Palace and West Brom etc.

Should’ve scored more penalties.

Should’ve taken more chances.

Think we’ve hit the woodwork the most in the league, even if half of those went it, we’d probably be near the top 10.

Once again, this season, like every other season, we’ve shown that we can beat the big boys. I doubt a newly promoted team can boast the record we have against the big 6.

Next season could be massive.

 

[Uter]

You (and others on here) seem to have forgotten that they key measure as to how good a side is is their results. Not the gambling/Statistician outlook.

Stats paint a picture. But the main aim of the game is 3 points

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

There is a correlation between points accrued and the strength of a team, but the number of points teams of equal strength can gain over 30 games can vary enormously. You are underestimating how much of a factor luck is over that time period. Analytics can help in determining whether your position in the table is a true one and reflects how good you actually are, or whether you been lucky/unlucky.

Most of our underlying metrics are good and point to us being particularly unfortunate. i.e. we are doing most things right and just have to trust that in the long term we will regress to the mean.

 

[FatSuperman]

You (and others on here) seem to have forgotten that they key measure as to how good a side is is their results. Not the gambling/Statistician outlook.

Stats paint a picture. But the main aim of the game is 3 points

With respect, the table is only a key measure of how successful a football team has been over a given period, but not how 'good' they are. It may seem a subtle difference, but surely you accept a performance can be fantastic without leading to any points? At the absolute basic level, of course you could reply "can't be that good a performance if you lose", but anyone with an ounce of objectivity will understand. Do you think that Palace's performance was good? I mean, they won right, but does that make us less 'good' than them? Of course not.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I think we are about the 12th best team

We must stop deluding ourselves. Our average position this season has been 16th, we've been in 15th-17th spot for 26 consecutive weeks and - for about 1 hour on 13th March - we were in the relegation places "As It Stands" until Man City took the lead over Fulham. Prior to that the were either 15th or 16th for the final 16 weeks of last season.

We will be the 12th best team when the table says we are 12th.

 

[Pavilionaire]

With respect, the table is only a key measure of how successful a football team has been over a given period, but not how 'good' they are. It may seem a subtle difference, but surely you accept a performance can be fantastic without leading to any points? At the absolute basic level, of course you could reply "can't be that good a performance if you lose", but anyone with an ounce of objectivity will understand. Do you think that Palace performance was good? I mean, they won fight, but does that make us less 'good' than them? Of course not.

The fact that we played the "good" football and Palace didn't was of no consequence to me as they grabbed a late winner. I would gladly trade some of our "good" performances for some ugly but productive ones.

 

[BeHereNow]

Our team are as good as 11th, no doubt about it. We dominate teams like we are a 4th to 6th team. We’ve had an incredibly unlucky season, you only have to watch all the games to see that.

 

[FatSuperman]

The fact that we played the "good" football and Palace didn't was of no consequence to me as they grabbed a late winner. I would gladly trade some of our "good" performances for some ugly but productive ones.

But Pav I don't mean good as in 'pretty'. I simply mean we played better, we were better at everything except scoring goals. I say that based on what I saw, and how I feel that over time (ie enough games), our way will lead to more wins than their approach. I do understand that when everybody got together to determine the method for determining a winner, they chose goals over pass accuracy, and that was probably a good decision. So unleswe all come up with an agreement by what we mean we say 'good', I suppose this is heading towards another binfest.

 

[Stat Brother]

We must stop deluding ourselves. Our average position this season has been 16th, we've been in 15th-17th spot for 26 consecutive weeks and - for about 1 hour on 13th March - we were in the relegation places "As It Stands" until Man City took the lead over Fulham. Prior to that the were either 15th or 16th for the final 16 weeks of last season.

We will be the 12th best team when the table says we are 12th.

Got to wonder if all this misplaced confidence would be so evident if the Albion had beaten Newcastle 1-0 with a 92nd minute own goal from JonJo Sleazy.

 

[FatSuperman]

Our team are as good as 11th, no doubt about it. We dominate teams like we are a 4th to 6th team. We’ve had an incredibly unlucky season, you only have to watch all the games to see that.

The trouble is, many of us will say that 'hitting the post five times' just means you aren't good enough, because you've had 5 shots off-target there. I just don't understand that mentality. Surely the vast majority of us have not only watched most our lives, but have actually played the game a fair amount - surely as kids we remember how much chance is involved in actually managing to score a goal. We seem to attribute everyone else's shots as clinical / skilful rather than lucky, and our shots as poor attempts, rather than unlucky. It's clearly a mix of all things.

I mean, the talent that Prichard must posses to beat Stockdale, bounce the ball off the crossbar and hit him in the back as he dives. What an astonishing player. We should have tried to sign him.

 

[Nathan]

Pick the bones out of that. We are great and shit at the same time.

[Tweet]1374367990712389635[/Tweet]

 

[Terry Butcher Tribute Act]

The fact that we played the "good" football and Palace didn't was of no consequence to me as they grabbed a late winner. I would gladly trade some of our "good" performances for some ugly but productive ones.

Yeah exactly.

I'm baffled by people suddenly prepared to judge a side on nothing but stats. Stats show we're good going at getting shots off and keeping it relatively tight at the back. I can see that with my own eyes.

But are we good at winning football matches? 7 wins out of 29 suggests, no we aren't. Not yet anyway.

If in the long term it pays off and we threaten the European spots next year, great. The club are playing long game and hopefully it pays off.

But in the very short term, would i rather be where we are, or where Palace are (safe and having beaten their rivals in their own back yard again)?




Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Hotchilidog]

But Pav I don't mean good as in 'pretty'. I simply mean we played better, we were better at everything except scoring goals. I say that based on what I saw, and how I feel that over time (ie enough games), our way will lead to more wins than their approach. I do understand that when everybody got together to determine the method for determining a winner, they chose goals over pass accuracy, and that was probably a good decision. So unleswe all come up with an agreement by what we mean we say 'good', I suppose this is heading towards another binfest.

In a nutshell this. Of course goals get you the wins, but you simply cannot ignore the progress we have made on the pitch. This team is playing at a far higher level than we have at anytime in the premier league. We have dominated teams in a fashion we have not before and on a more consistent basis. A good performance against a 'Top' side is no longer a rare event to be celebrated with a one off dvd, but a more regular occurance.

This team can now stride out on to the pitch against Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, Everton, Leicester and not be afraid.

But for some incomprehensible VAR decisions that were beyond our control, and some absolutely comedy finishing we'd easily have another 5 or 6 points (for that we can blame ourselves).

The Potter project is in motion both on and off the pitch. We are also now seeing the fruits of our academy and U23 recruitment with the amassing of in-house replacements for any potential departees in the summer too.

This is not the same old, same old. The frustration of our league position is the same, but this is it arises because we know we should be higher.

 

[Pavilionaire]

But Pav I don't mean good as in 'pretty'. I simply mean we played better, we were better at everything except scoring goals. I say that based on what I saw, and how I feel that over time (ie enough games), our way will lead to more wins than their approach. I do understand that when everybody got together to determine the method for determining a winner, they chose goals over pass accuracy, and that was probably a good decision. So unleswe all come up with an agreement by what we mean we say 'good', I suppose this is heading towards another binfest.

I take your point, and I totally get that it is better to be in 15th spot playing like a top 10 side than playing anti-football like Newcastle and Burnley.

Indeed, most pundits would rather watch us than Palace but ask them who they'd back to visit a top six side and snatch an away win and they'd probably say Palace. That said I do believe will will at least equal - if not better - last season's 15th place finish and 41 point tally.

 

[RexCathedra]

.... surely as kids we remember how much chance is involved in actually managing to score a goal..

Luck has nothing to do with it -- it's up to the manager. Or down to the manager.

One or the other, tho...