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

[Guinness Boy]

If you stuck a 5' goalkeeper with an arm missing in goal at Man City - they could do everything right and still lose 5-4.

We are doing everything right ... but we simply don't have the players to finish it off. Yes, it's the bit that counts - but what can you do? if you don't have the players, you don't have the players.

Connolly - not up to it. Maupay - probably not up to it. Welbeck - perpetually not match fit. Tau, Zequiri, who knows, unlikely. Trossard is the most that looks like scoring, except he very rarely does.

We just need to keep doing what we're doing, unfortunately. We literally are doing everything right, but we just lack the players. Put Ibrahimovic in this team and we'd be top 10.

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.

 

[Swansman]

But what element of possession should we care about?

Liverpool 0 Brighton 1 - Brighton 37% possession
Brighton 1 Spurs 0 - Brighton 43% possession
Leeds 0 Brighton 1 - Brighton 33% possession
Brighton 1 Palace 2 - Brighton 75% possession

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.

And how many times have you heard a kid come off the pitch after a game and ask his dad excitedly "hey Dad, what was my Xgf?"

In what way is this relevant to anything whatsoever?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Further demonstrating that you may be a bit of a dinosaur, "literally" is now used as a word of emphasis, as defined by all major dictionaries. You're going to have to get used to that I'm afraid. Language evolves, just as football does.

If you want to be pedantic, it would be impossible to do "everything right" over 90 minutes. There will be imperfections in even the greatest performances. But given the players at our disposal, we are doing everything right. Literally.

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.

 

[Steve in Japan]

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......

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

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.

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.

 

[Guinness Boy]

In what way is this relevant to anything whatsoever?

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.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Factually, literally, you're wrong, if a game finishes goalless, both teams get a point!

You don't do irony do you? Whoosh.

 

[schmunk]

For the statto kids - the football history books will not include xG just the scoreline.

...but the history websites will include xG too.

 

[Swansman]

Those poor managers in the Seventies. They’d watch their teams play well in defence and midfield and then bungle every chance of scoring, but they wouldn’t know what was happening and that they needed a goal scorer as there was no data science to tell them.

And they would all get stomped today due to the advent of sports science.

For the statto kids - the football history books will not include xG just the scoreline.

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.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

You don't do irony do you? Whoosh.

More so than you I would suggest.

 

[Swansman]

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.

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.

 

[Guinness Boy]

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.

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.

 

[Swansman]

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]

No you should do it your own way. "We lost but the boys had fun and got icecream and soda afterwards".

That's what the "well I'd rather play well and go down" crowd are saying.

 

[Swansman]

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]

But what element of possession should we care about?

Liverpool 0 Brighton 1 - Brighton 37% possession
Brighton 1 Spurs 0 - Brighton 43% possession
Leeds 0 Brighton 1 - Brighton 33% possession
Brighton 1 Palace 2 - Brighton 75% possession

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.

 

[Swansman]

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.

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]

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.

Siri, what does a straw man argument look like?

 

[disgruntled h blocker]

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.

 

[Swansman]

Siri, what does a straw man argument look like?

"It worked in the 70s"