[Brighton] XPG - A Fourth Place Finish

[Stato]

Good for him for conning a living out of people who think anything except results actually means anything.

Yeah, I mean why look at players' diets and fitness, why bother with tactics or training, why analyse the way your opponent plays, why have scouts look for players who suit your need? None of these things matter. Only results mean anything.

I know that my comparisons are excessive, but 'tiny margins' was what Chris always said. We are at a financial disadvantage in this league and we have to consider anything at all that could give us even a possibility of a margin in our favour. Tony Bloom obviously knows that these things can be useful, even if it's just in him earning money to fund the signings that we hope for.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Yeah, I mean why look at players' diets and fitness, why bother with tactics or training, why analyse the way your opponent plays, why have scouts look for players who suit your need? None of these things matter. Only results mean anything.

I know that my comparisons are excessive, but 'tiny margins' was what Chris always said. We are at a financial disadvantage in this league and we have to consider anything at all that could give us even a possibility of a margin in our favour. Tony Bloom obviously knows that these things can be useful, even if it's just in him earning money to fund the signings that we hope for.

I know you're replying to someone else but this feels like a conversation that was on NSC fairly regularly.

You'd be absolutely mad to chuck away all the modern progress in football analysis and player development, whether it was energy gels, diet, distance run, number of shots or heatmaps showing relative positions, as well as all the video analysis etc that goes on. And I did a fairly rudimentary stats piece for NSC that was fun to write that came simply out of checking out the Premier League site's stats on Ryan Bertrand to see if they confirmed my gut feel that he wasn't really anything better than we already had, Before we knew it I was off down a rabbit hole of Mason Mount assists and Bissouma's shooting percentages.

I would argue two things strongly, however. Firstly xG is absolutely the most useless of all those things. It tells you when you've lost a game you should have won and nine tenths of the fans in the stands can tell you that, even if they've had five pints of Krony as their pre-match meal. Reducing integer goals to decimal averages is silly.

Secondly the opposite to what you said in your other post. Just as you can be group think without stats, so you can be too moneyball. On the one hand it's worked for us to an extent and Brentford to an extent but next season we'll start level with Watford who get through a couple of coaches a season, Wolves who have the Mendes Special Plan for recruitment and Burnley who have a very specific game plan, and Brentford are still 90 minutes away from even that. There does not seem to be a "right way" in football, or everyone would use it. That's not throwing diet, psychology or stats in the bin - it's just not being a slave to it.

 

[Audax]

I don't think that's what our eyes say or the stats say. We didn't underperform. We were brilliant in the middle third and defence but woeful in front of goal. 38 games is enough for any peaks and troughs of luck to iron themselves out. If we keep the same attacking players there's nothing in XG or XP to suggest that the players who failed this time are going to do any better next time.

We under performed in terms of our finishing position on the table. For the exact reasons you highlight in your second sentence. A pro gambler will look at that and be sitting there thinking: "there's a good chance that Brighton team will do better next season. They're only 1 or 2 good signings, or 1 or 2 players coming into form, away from being a strong side."

Conversely, they'll be looking at Tottenham thinking "if Kane goes, they're gonna sink."

I still think XG can tell you a story about a team. I just don't see how it can predict anything which happens in the future.

It's not intended as a future prediction tool, which is what a lot of the people who don't like xG as a stat fail to recognise. The only thing it does is provide insight into events that have already happened. It is then up to individuals to decide what those insights mean. Some individuals (ie pro gamblers) might use it (along with other metrics) as a tool to help them determine the potential that a team has for the future. They aren't predicting. They are weighing up potential and probabilities for the future based on the data available to them.

I know in some respects that's splitting hairs. But ultimately, no one with a modicum of understanding is using xG stats to predict future events. They're only using them to help build a picture of which teams have been under-performing and which teams have been over-performing and then making a bet on whether or not those teams will 'correct' their performances in future. While many conflate them, gambling =/= prediction.

 

[Stato]

I know you're replying to someone else but this feels like a conversation that was on NSC fairly regularly.

You'd be absolutely mad to chuck away all the modern progress in football analysis and player development, whether it was energy gels, diet, distance run, number of shots or heatmaps showing relative positions, as well as all the video analysis etc that goes on. And I did a fairly rudimentary stats piece for NSC that was fun to write that came simply out of checking out the Premier League site's stats on Ryan Bertrand to see if they confirmed my gut feel that he wasn't really anything better than we already had, Before we knew it I was off down a rabbit hole of Mason Mount assists and Bissouma's shooting percentages.

I would argue two things strongly, however. Firstly xG is absolutely the most useless of all those things. It tells you when you've lost a game you should have won and nine tenths of the fans in the stands can tell you that, even if they've had five pints of Krony as their pre-match meal. Reducing integer goals to decimal averages is silly.

Secondly the opposite to what you said in your other post. Just as you can be group think without stats, so you can be too moneyball. On the one hand it's worked for us to an extent and Brentford to an extent but next season we'll start level with Watford who get through a couple of coaches a season, Wolves who have the Mendes Special Plan for recruitment and Burnley who have a very specific game plan, and Brentford are still 90 minutes away from even that. There does not seem to be a "right way" in football, or everyone would use it. That's not throwing diet, psychology or stats in the bin - it's just not being a slave to it.

I'm not arguing that we fixate on any type of analysis, only take what may prove useful without dismissing anything.

 

[CaptainDaveUK]

I believe Ryan was dropped for Sanchez based partly on Xg, and since January we have been one of the best sides in the division defensively. Hopefully we can do a similar thing offensively too and start to match our Xg. I believe we are currently one decent striker away from being a top ten team. UTA.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your spotty 16 year old is actually Ben Mayhew, head of data analysis at PA Media (formerly the press association). His work is credited in articles in the Mirror, Independent, Mail, Standard, as well as several Irish and Scottish and online publications.

Xg is just an interesting and sometimes useful analytical tool. Anybody arguing that it should be able to get everything right is misunderstanding its intent. Of course real world results are what matter and analytical tools cannot take into account every possibility in a dynamic game like football. I've been reading Experimental 361 for years. It is very well put together and, if you have an analytical bent. its fascinating. Here's it's end of season scatter graphic which hints at the way teams are set up to play and how well they have achieved their plan: https://experimental361.com/2021/05/24/scatter-graphics-premier-league-2020-21/

The mistake is to think that it predicts the future. A wide disparity between Xp & Xg won't always revert to the mean. It could be a suggestion that a team is set up to dominate, to create chances, but that it is giving its opponents some significant advantages by doing so, or vice versa. Us and Palace are the classic examples of this for the 2020/21 season. Their game plan has been based on facing a lot of shots, but putting away the chances that they get. Ours has been to involve the whole side in creating chances. As we can see from our games against them, this can mean that the few chances that they get happen in spaces and against backtracking defenders. Ours tend to occur in front of a packed area. They haven't been particularly successful in defending against heavy pressure, but they've been very good at putting away the few chances that they create. We have conceded few shots, but struggled to score our chances. I argue that this is because our playing style leans towards creating a lot of chances and needs to instead find ways of creating space for the attacking players to manoeuvre in.

I think that Xg would be more generally accepted if it were named something else. It's about run of play. We are all familiar with the concept of goals being scored against the run of play. When Hyypia was our manager we were all to familiar and it wasn't about bad luck, it was about over committing in some areas and risking too much in others. Talking about it in these terms rather than in terms of goals that 'could have happened' would put distance between the findings and consumer expectations. It's never going to be perfect because football has far too many measurables to be easily predictable. That, as eaglesdan has posted, is why we all love it. However, the analysis is not meaningless either. If you take a look at the performances of teams that have under-performed their Xp over each full season (this one goes back to 2014/15 https://understat.com/league/EPL/2020), you'll generally see that those who under-performed are roughly two thirds more likely to be found in the bottom half of the table. Only 2 from 24 teams relegated in the eight seasons shown have over-performed and still been relegated.

In our case you can see a distinct shift between being very close to our Xp in the first two seasons where we all knew that we needed to be, and were, performing to our maximums in order to survive, to first a significant and then an unprecedented under-performance in our next two seasons. This just states a measurement. The underlying potential meanings are what make it interesting. Does it mean that we are more competitive, but not yet able to put teams away? Does it show the sea change between Hughton and Potter? What is the significance of Murray's absence? A lot of people argue that Xg is meaningless because it fails to give or provides the wrong answers. I view the tool as more useful for considering the right questions. Others may argue that they can see problems without having underlying data, but the point made in Moneyball is that this can lead to group think and leave gaps for exploitation available to those who don't just rely on their perception alone.

A very persuasive and detailed post, although it might struggle to persuade the unpersuadable.

 

[Machiavelli]

I know you're replying to someone else but this feels like a conversation that was on NSC fairly regularly.

You'd be absolutely mad to chuck away all the modern progress in football analysis and player development, whether it was energy gels, diet, distance run, number of shots or heatmaps showing relative positions, as well as all the video analysis etc that goes on. And I did a fairly rudimentary stats piece for NSC that was fun to write that came simply out of checking out the Premier League site's stats on Ryan Bertrand to see if they confirmed my gut feel that he wasn't really anything better than we already had, Before we knew it I was off down a rabbit hole of Mason Mount assists and Bissouma's shooting percentages.

I would argue two things strongly, however. Firstly xG is absolutely the most useless of all those things. It tells you when you've lost a game you should have won and nine tenths of the fans in the stands can tell you that, even if they've had five pints of Krony as their pre-match meal. Reducing integer goals to decimal averages is silly.

Secondly the opposite to what you said in your other post. Just as you can be group think without stats, so you can be too moneyball. On the one hand it's worked for us to an extent and Brentford to an extent but next season we'll start level with Watford who get through a couple of coaches a season, Wolves who have the Mendes Special Plan for recruitment and Burnley who have a very specific game plan, and Brentford are still 90 minutes away from even that. There does not seem to be a "right way" in football, or everyone would use it. That's not throwing diet, psychology or stats in the bin - it's just not being a slave to it.

You might not be surprised that I'm with [MENTION=22849]Stato[/MENTION] and [MENTION=33374]Audax[/MENTION], in no small part because they're providing a nuanced argument that isn't making over-bold claims. You are, however, and they relate to both of your points. Here they are, and here's why I think they're wrong.

1, "xG is absolutely the most useless of all those things": you're creating a simplistic binary (whereas those you're responding to are not). It isn't, it's one tool amongst many. And I'll do what you sometimes do here, and invoke Bloom, who will be all over these analytical tools, and has probably helped devise them before they have slowly filtered through to the football supporting community.

2, "There does not seem to be a "right way" in football, or everyone would use it". There's something to this, but try telling this to Pep or Klopp and indicate to them that they should mix things up a bit and set their team up differently. They have produced two very different styles of play, but these are undoubtedly the most effective styles currently around. There's a caveat though: they require very different players to play effectively. You put Pep in charge of Liverpool, and Klopp in charge of City, and they'd both be far less effective, because their squads are full of very different players. Liverpool value pace, physicality and intensity to play their 'heavy metal football' whereas City also favour pace, but allied with technique, vision and intricate movement. Teams lower down the division (and Burnley) recognise that they can't get the players to play either of those styles, so they play a very different way, and Burnley do it extremely effectively -- Dyche is the master at that style of play. If you want to get up the table in the highest leagues, however, you need to gravitate towards the Pep or Klopp style, rather than the Dyche.

 

[Guinness Boy]

You might not be surprised that I'm with [MENTION=22849]Stato[/MENTION] and [MENTION=33374]Audax[/MENTION], in no small part because they're providing a nuanced argument that isn't making over-bold claims. You are, however, and they relate to both of your points. Here they are, and here's why I think they're wrong.

1, "xG is absolutely the most useless of all those things": you're creating a simplistic binary (whereas those you're responding to are not). It isn't, it's one tool amongst many. And I'll do what you sometimes do here, and invoke Bloom, who will be all over these analytical tools, and has probably helped devise them before they have slowly filtered through to the football supporting community.

2, "There does not seem to be a "right way" in football, or everyone would use it". There's something to this, but try telling this to Pep or Klopp and indicate to them that they should mix things up a bit and set their team up differently. They have produced two very different styles of play, but these are undoubtedly the most effective styles currently around. There's a caveat though: they require very different players to play effectively. You put Pep in charge of Liverpool, and Klopp in charge of City, and they'd both be far less effective, because their squads are full of very different players. Liverpool value pace, physicality and intensity to play their 'heavy metal football' whereas City also favour pace, but allied with technique, vision and intricate movement. Teams lower down the division (and Burnley) recognise that they can't get the players to play either of those styles, so they play a very different way, and Burnley do it extremely effectively -- Dyche is the master at that style of play. If you want to get up the table in the highest leagues, however, you need to gravitate towards the Pep or Klopp style, rather than the Dyche.

1) Does our place in a final xG table really tell someone as switched on as Bloom something he doesn't know? That's my point. If you look at the MotD analysis at the end of the City game where they picked up we were virtually one at the back with Moder and Tross doubling up down the left to create the overload - that's great analysis. If you suspect a player is lazy or not tracking back you can look at his heatmap and his km covered and instantly back that assertion up. You can spot minute weaknesses with forensic video assessment, get miniscule percentage improvements from a player by working on a weakness, changing their diet or gym regime. I'm in favour of all that. If you've drawn 1-1 and the xg was (as per my original example) 0.79 v 1.12 then, frankly, so ****ing what?

But my key phrase was of all those things. Obviously we can use a players xG as part of analysing him individually but there is already disagreement on what our massive underachievement versus our xG in the actual table means. To continue, if next season we finish, say, 9th in the xG table and 12th in the real table is that an improvement? Those on NSC who point to our xG success might have trouble with that one, yet for me it would be a clear indicator that our fundamental ability to finish and create better chances has improved.

2) That's my whole point. There have been multitudes of football philosophy from Total Football to Catenaccio. We have a long term plan and Moneyball. Watford who start level with us next season change coach with the wind. Each proponent thinks they are "right".

 

[blue-shifted]

If you were to ask me which is closer to the truth

a) we're the 16th best team in the league
b) we're the 4th best team in the league

I'd say a. Without hesitation. 99% of football fans in the country would as well. Not saying we haven't played well, I thought we had a great season.

 

[zefarelly]

I think throwing your garbage in the river was a thing in 1853 not 1953

Now throwing supermarket trolleys in the river is a very current thing

I know someone who threw a vespa in the river in 1988. another person reetreived the engine, the frame has now completely dissolved

I wonder if any nerds out there have done an xR table for relegation. Asking for a Norfolk resident.

 

[Stat Brother]

2) That's my whole point. There have been multitudes of football philosophy from Total Football to Catenaccio. We have a long term plan and Moneyball. Watford who start level with us next season change coach with the wind. Each proponent thinks they are "right".

palace spend all their money, and some, on 1 player and a gaggle of overpaid old timers.
Not a penny on infrastructure.
Very little on yoof development.

Yet always manage finish above us.

 

[Guinness Boy]

palace spend all their money, and some, on 1 player and a gaggle of overpaid old timers.
Not a penny on infrastructure.
Very little on yoof development.

Yet always manage finish above us.

Exactly. "We've had more potential than you for four years now". Great bantz.

 

[Stato]

To continue, if next season we finish, say, 9th in the xG table and 12th in the real table is that an improvement? Those on NSC who point to our xG success might have trouble with that one, yet for me it would be a clear indicator that our fundamental ability to finish and create better chances has improved.

Of course everyone would be happy to swap any level of Xg for real results. I think the barrier in discussing this is that those who don't like Xg analysis tend to suggest that those who have an interest in it are zealots who value Xg over everything. I'm not suggesting that you are doing this, but a lot of self proclaimed pundits on the internet seem to always be railing against 'Graham Potter and his army of Xg fan followers'. There are a couple of problems with this: Potter has said that he doesn't pay a lot of attention to it, and I've never seen, read or spoken to anyone who says anything more than what you are hinting at, i.e. having a decent Xg can be a promising sign, but it's not actual success.

Our Xg measurement has been skewed this season by repeated games where we have dominated and failed to win: Palace (H&A), Sheffield United (H&A), Fulham (H&A), West Brom (A), Aston Villa (H), Burnley (H). 9 matches, 4 goals, 6 points. Our total Xg would probably be somewhere between 15 & 20 for these matches together. Our Xp would probably be around the maximum of 27 and the difference between that and the 6 we actually got accounts for the massive disparity between our XP and actual points. While its obvious that all the measurement does it document what we fans all know: that we have struggled against the teams that defend deep, it also provides data for the analysts at the club to argue that this is a key area that we have to address. This season it's been the difference between 41 points and 60+ points. It obviously doesn't suggest a tactical or transfer market solution, just indicates that there is a disparity between these games and the rest of our matches where we have generally been able to match or exceed expectation. It points to an issue that the coaching, scouting and playing staff need to pay particular attention to. Those who joke that we'll be doing an Xparade for qualifying for the XCL fail to understand that it is not an end in itself. For us this year, it is not a sign of success, but it can contribute to pinpointing the areas where we have failed.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Of course everyone would be happy to swap any level of Xg for real results. I think the barrier in discussing this is that those who don't like Xg analysis tend to suggest that those who have an interest in it are zealots who value Xg over everything. I'm not suggesting that you are doing this, but a lot of self proclaimed pundits on the internet seem to always be railing against 'Graham Potter and his army of Xg fan followers'. There are a couple of problems with this: Potter has said that he doesn't pay a lot of attention to it, and I've never seen, read or spoken to anyone who says anything more than what you are hinting at, i.e. having a decent Xg can be a promising sign, but it's not actual success.

Our Xg measurement has been skewed this season by repeated games where we have dominated and failed to win: Palace (H&A), Sheffield United (H&A), Fulham (H&A), West Brom (A), Aston Villa (H), Burnley (H). 9 matches, 4 goals, 6 points. Our total Xg would probably be somewhere between 15 & 20 for these matches together. Our Xp would probably be around the maximum of 27 and the difference between that and the 6 we actually got accounts for the massive disparity between our XP and actual points. While its obvious that all the measurement does it document what we fans all know: that we have struggled against the teams that defend deep, it also provides data for the analysts at the club to argue that this is a key area that we have to address. This season it's been the difference between 41 points and 60+ points. It obviously doesn't suggest a tactical or transfer market solution, just indicates that there is a disparity between these games and the rest of our matches where we have generally been able to match or exceed expectation. It points to an issue that the coaching, scouting and playing staff need to pay particular attention to. Those who joke that we'll be doing an Xparade for qualifying for the XCL fail to understand that it is not an end in itself. For us this year, it is not a sign of success, but it can contribute to pinpointing the areas where we have failed.

Fair enough and thanks for the answer

I'm not too far off that position really. I guess my thought is that at most xG is a canary in a mine. If it is, then what you really need then are the other things - video / heatmap analysis to see WHY the chances are missed, working on specifics in training and targeting new signings.

 

[Stato]

Fair enough and thanks for the answer

I'm not too far off that position really. I guess my thought is that at most xG is a canary in a mine. If it is, then what you really need then are the other things - video / heatmap analysis to see WHY the chances are missed, working on specifics in training and targeting new signings.

Yes, I think your canary in a mine analogy is spot on. It doesn't do much more than that apart from give football obsessives something else to bang on about. I would probably say that its a better tool for the media than it is for clubs, which is why I can understand the annoyance it causes among fans. As far as Brighton are concerned this season it's just seemed to add another one to the commentator bingo card. Along with BDB is tall, Bissouma/Ben White/Tariq Lamptey are too good for this lot, surely someone wants to buy them, they can add that Xg shows that all we need is a 20 goal a season striker and we'll fly up the table and sound like they are basing this on analysis rather than stating the bleedin' obvious. Who wouldn't fly up the table if they had a 20 goal a season striker? We'd all be happy with another Glenn Murray and, even in his best ever season in the top league, he only got 13.

 

[Seasidesage]

palace spend all their money, and some, on 1 player and a gaggle of overpaid old timers.
Not a penny on infrastructure.
Very little on yoof development.

Yet always manage finish above us.

Always? Next season? 5 years after that?

Another way to look at it is we are 3 points behind them with a sustainable business model, a young team in place, an academy starting to pull its weight in a state of the art facility and a ground fit for purpose. They have a complete rebuilding job of both team and stadium...

 

[Stat Brother]

Always? Next season? 5 years after that?

Another way to look at it is we are 3 points behind them with a sustainable business model, a young team in place, an academy starting to pull its weight in a state of the art facility and a ground fit for purpose. They have a complete rebuilding job of both team and stadium...

Is there any chance we can actually finish above them, before we say how great it is to finish above them?

 

[Swansman]

palace spend all their money, and some, on 1 player and a gaggle of overpaid old timers.
Not a penny on infrastructure.
Very little on yoof development.

Yet always manage finish above us.

Jealous of their strategy? I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.

 

[chaileyjem]

palace spend all their money, and some, on 1 player and a gaggle of overpaid old timers.
Not a penny on infrastructure.
Very little on yoof development.

Yet always manage finish above us.

I know you're teasing SB - but Palace have (finally) invested pretty heavily in youth development over the last few years.
They're now a Cat 1 academy, were promoted to PL2 Div 1 (with the Albion) only 48 hours ago and their u18s have had a really good year nearly winning their league - and beating us er, 5-1 a few weeks ago.
Wan Bissaka, and now Tyrick Mitchell also show some pathway to the first team squad and beyond.

No news on the stand mind.

 

[Stat Brother]

I know you're teasing SB - but Palace have (finally) invested pretty heavily in youth development over the last few years.
They're now a Cat 1 academy, were promoted to PL2 Div 1 (with the Albion) only 48 hours ago and their u18s have had a really good year nearly winning their league - and beating us er, 5-1 a few weeks ago.
Wan Bissaka, and now Tyrick Mitchell also show some pathway to the first team squad and beyond.

No news on the stand mind.

Not my most teasing.

I did differentiate between none and some, granted with no actual idea how much was the 'some' was being spent, on their academy.
That said it's easier to quantify 'no' money spent.


But as this was a discussion on the relative merits of statistical analysis and how they are applied.
It seemed rather remiss to not mention one team, their brazen and oh so predictable approach, that appears to be rooted in chequebookball, and it's continued comparative success against ourselves.