[Albion] Goals to shots stats

[saafend_seagull]

Some interesting ones.

Huddersfield have had 121 attempts at goal at home since March and have scored 1 goal. Simply incredible, they are doomed.

Soton, 5th most shots this season (124) but are 18th in the scorers list.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Post the list so we can see for ourselves?

 

[Left Footer]

The thing about Huddersfield is they go toe to toe with the big clubs like on Saturday they gave Liverpool a hell of a game and were unlucky not to get a point.
They do struggle to score goals but if they continue playing the same way will one day give someone a pasting.

I still think they will go down but it won`t be for trying.

 

[Pavilionaire]

It's about time football got its act together over meaningful stats.

Number of shots is a meaningless figure. What is relevant is the percentage of shots that a) are on target and b) result in goals.

Similarly, % of possession is a meaningless stat. What is relevant is the ratio of proper chances created per 90 minutes of possession.

On target and off target are also misleading as a bullet header that pings the bar counts as off-target but a tame shot from 20 yards into the keeper's breadbasket counts as on-target.

In Major League Baseball they have adjudicators who score plays as either hits or fielder errors. We need the same in football. A greater weighted emphasis on goal-scoring chances created will put pressure on teams to deliver the numbers, which should make for more attractive football. Newcastle is a classic case in point of a team that tap it around to boost the possession stats and try ill-judged shots that boost their shots tally.

Beleaguered managers then point to these stats as some sort of justification for "deserving something out of the game" when what counts is quality, not quantity.

 

[brightonrock]

It's about time football got its act together over meaningful stats.

Number of shots is a meaningless figure. What is relevant is the percentage of shots that a) are on target and b) result in goals.

Similarly, % of possession is a meaningless stat. What is relevant is the ratio of proper chances created per 90 minutes of possession.

On target and off target are also misleading as a bullet header that pings the bar counts as off-target but a tame shot from 20 yards into the keeper's breadbasket counts as on-target.

In Major League Baseball they have adjudicators who score plays as either hits or fielder errors. We need the same in football. A greater weighted emphasis on goal-scoring chances created will put pressure on teams to deliver the numbers, which should make for more attractive football. Newcastle is a classic case in point of a team that tap it around to boost the possession stats and try ill-judged shots that boost their shots tally.

Beleaguered managers then point to these stats as some sort of justification for "deserving something out of the game" when what counts is quality, not quantity.

They do have this, it's called Expected Goals, or XG. You see it on the stats after a game on MOTD. It analyses the position and relative quality of the chance and weights them accordingly, so a 30 yard pot shot that goes in is not 'expected', whereas a 3 yard tap in that's blazed over.

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[dazzer6666]

It's about time football got its act together over meaningful stats.

Number of shots is a meaningless figure. What is relevant is the percentage of shots that a) are on target and b) result in goals.

Similarly, % of possession is a meaningless stat. What is relevant is the ratio of proper chances created per 90 minutes of possession.

On target and off target are also misleading as a bullet header that pings the bar counts as off-target but a tame shot from 20 yards into the keeper's breadbasket counts as on-target.

In Major League Baseball they have adjudicators who score plays as either hits or fielder errors. We need the same in football. A greater weighted emphasis on goal-scoring chances created will put pressure on teams to deliver the numbers, which should make for more attractive football. Newcastle is a classic case in point of a team that tap it around to boost the possession stats and try ill-judged shots that boost their shots tally.

Beleaguered managers then point to these stats as some sort of justification for "deserving something out of the game" when what counts is quality, not quantity.

Spot on - Newcastle has a lot of shots, but most of them were pretty crap (particularly the one that hit the corner flag )

 

[Pavilionaire]

They do have this, it's called Expected Goals, or XG. You see it on the stats after a game on MOTD. It analyses the position and relative quality of the chance and weights them accordingly, so a 30 yard pot shot that goes in is not 'expected', whereas a 3 yard tap in that's blazed over.

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

Good point, but I haven't seen any pundits routinely using XG in their analysis, it doesn't get explained, it's not mainstream and I've not seen it on Sky. It's time some stats were replaced with others.

You hear fans moaning "we should be beating teams like Brighton / Bournemouth / Burnley / Watford" and they don't understand why they lose but the metrics often tell the story as to why particular sides are more dangerous than they at first appear.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Good point, but I haven't seen any pundits routinely using XG in their analysis, it doesn't get explained, it's not mainstream and I've not seen it on Sky. It's time some stats were replaced with others.

You hear fans moaning "we should be beating teams like Brighton / Bournemouth / Burnley / Watford" and they don't understand why they lose but the metrics often tell the story as to why particular sides are more dangerous than they at first appear.

I'd say it's all becoming quite mainstream... it just depends where you digest your football from. Burnley, in particular, are an intriguing example of XG and how it can be used to analyse a match. The issue with the mainstream football media is that it's covered by a lot of old pros and they're often really slow to delve into these things that weren't a part of the game when they were playing.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

You can also read a great deal of evidence from pro-footballers "auto"-biographies that state how they or others played a certain way to influence OPTA stats that they knew the manager focused on.

 

[strings]

Good point, but I haven't seen any pundits routinely using XG in their analysis, it doesn't get explained, it's not mainstream and I've not seen it on Sky. It's time some stats were replaced with others.

You hear fans moaning "we should be beating teams like Brighton / Bournemouth / Burnley / Watford" and they don't understand why they lose but the metrics often tell the story as to why particular sides are more dangerous than they at first appear.

Interesting - I noticed this a while ago, but never really understood what it meant.

So, from Saturday's game, given the chances created, Newcastle should have scored 1.71 goals, we should have scored 0.62. I.e. we were good in front of goal and Newcastle were not.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Interesting - I noticed this a while ago, but never really understood what it meant.

So, from Saturday's game, given the chances created, Newcastle should have scored 1.71 goals, we should have scored 0.62. I.e. we were good in front of goal and Newcastle were not.

This is the problem, as the XG stats only serve to increase the sense of injustice the Newcastle fans must have felt. However, if our actual conversion rate is, say, 1 in 9 shots to their 1 in 22 then it's no wonder they lost.

 

[Icy Gull]

The thing about Huddersfield is they go toe to toe with the big clubs like on Saturday they gave Liverpool a hell of a game and were unlucky not to get a point.
They do struggle to score goals but if they continue playing the same way will one day give someone a pasting.

I still think they will go down but it won`t be for trying.

Wonder who that will be

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

They do have this, it's called Expected Goals, or XG. You see it on the stats after a game on MOTD. It analyses the position and relative quality of the chance and weights them accordingly, so a 30 yard pot shot that goes in is not 'expected', whereas a 3 yard tap in that's blazed over.

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

I see, so based only on that game and not they way they played previously, which is what I thought! Thanks, T

 

[Creaky]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Personally couldn’t care less about them - I go to football to be entertained which is probably an heretical statement to many on NSC.

 

[brightonrock]

Good point, but I haven't seen any pundits routinely using XG in their analysis, it doesn't get explained, it's not mainstream and I've not seen it on Sky. It's time some stats were replaced with others.

You hear fans moaning "we should be beating teams like Brighton / Bournemouth / Burnley / Watford" and they don't understand why they lose but the metrics often tell the story as to why particular sides are more dangerous than they at first appear.

Agreed - I can't remember where I read it, but I saw an analysis that our conversion rate is amongst the best in the division. We create relatively few chances, but have scored (as a %) more of those chances than, say, Hudds or Newcastle, who have been far more profligate.

I think the main reason it's not mainstream is that punditry nowadays is mostly pretty lazy - Paul Merson or Ian Wright stating the bleeding obvious "Walcott is so, so quick" rather than offering any actual insight.

Watching Liam Rosenior on The Debate, some of what he says is fascinating, talking in detail about running and passing lanes, creating overloads in certain areas and movement in transition. But that's not prime time MOTD fodder, because Big John in the pub wants to see the 30 yard thunderbolt or two footed tackle from 9 different angles.

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[father_and_son]

Agreed - I can't remember where I read it, but I saw an analysis that our conversion rate is amongst the best in the division. We create relatively few chances, but have scored (as a %) more of those chances than, say, Hudds or Newcastle, who have been far more profligate.

To further complicate this, and possibly the un-measurable aspect, is that we often get "into a shooting position" and then don't take the shot [particularly last season this was a big issue], whereas many clubs have players whose instinct/desire is to "have a go" regardless of whether its a good opportunity or not.


Counting our conversion rate may say a lot, counting a "shots taken per shots available" measure would say more. I'm sure that we would come out badly... but improving. I think this is something that CH has asked the team to work on plus it's something that comes with confidence and I think that this would be a powerful metric.



Have to add though... I am a statistician. I work in insurance and look at stats and propoensity models constantly. But I go to football to be entertained. I will look at the stats for a game I didn't see but when I have seen a game and compare what I saw to the stats, I am squarely in the "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" camp. You never get a true view of the game from the numbers that are readily available to Joe Public!

 

[Left Footer]

:

Wonder who that will be

Us, no doubt

 

[nickbrighton]

i watched the recent Spain v England game on a stream, it was NBCSNs coverage I think, one of the commentators asked the other about all these statistics we get now, from %possession, shots, Xg, running totals , the list is endless. I wish I could remember who it was, but he came up with the most meaningful analysis of it all... (I am paraphrasing here) Well, (insert name of commentator), they are all basically meaningless, made up stats to give pundits like us, who dont know any better something to talk about. The only stats that matter are how many goals you score and how many you concede, anything else is just twaddle.

Most sensible thing any football pundit or commentator has said in years

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting - I noticed this a while ago, but never really understood what it meant.

So, from Saturday's game, given the chances created, Newcastle should have scored 1.71 goals, we should have scored 0.62. I.e. we were good in front of goal and Newcastle were not.

My view is that, beyond the goal we did score (which might not be a XG), we had two of the best goalscoring opportunities (Jahanbakhsh and Bissouma), if not the best in that game, so I'm surprised to see what the XG came up with.

 

[Machiavelli]

To further complicate this, and possibly the un-measurable aspect, is that we often get "into a shooting position" and then don't take the shot [particularly last season this was a big issue], whereas many clubs have players whose instinct/desire is to "have a go" regardless of whether its a good opportunity or not.


Counting our conversion rate may say a lot, counting a "shots taken per shots available" measure would say more. I'm sure that we would come out badly... but improving. I think this is something that CH has asked the team to work on plus it's something that comes with confidence and I think that this would be a powerful metric.



Have to add though... I am a statistician. I work in insurance and look at stats and propoensity models constantly. But I go to football to be entertained. I will look at the stats for a game I didn't see but when I have seen a game and compare what I saw to the stats, I am squarely in the "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" camp. You never get a true view of the game from the numbers that are readily available to Joe Public!

Ha! I'm not so sure I agree with you, regarding your first point. I think our decision-making on when (and when not) to shoot is pretty good, and can't think of (m)any examples from last season when we should have shot and refrained from doing so (Knockaert occasionally has a propensity to be over-elaborate, but I can't think of anyone else, or specific examples. And to complicate things even further is that sometimes you might have the opportunity to shoot, but there's also an opportunity to find a teammate that's in a better position to shoot. Again, I think we're pretty good at this and, given that we're lil ol Brighton, we're much better at making these decisions than our comparable peers. The team that really did get into multiple goalscoring positions, but refrained from shooting, was Wenger's Arsenal.