MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

200 posts
Readingfanman
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1368
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 21:00

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Readingfanman » 12 Mar 2019 11:32

Stranded
Readingfanman
Hound certainly when I see this:

24th Feb 2019 - Rotherham (H) 1-1 draw despite 53% probability of a loss

I do wonder how on earth they get their stats together. Rotherham had 2 shots on goal in the game, including their goal and about 1 other chance, or even 'situation'. Where as we had about 5 good chances in the last 5 minutes alone

Rotherham did have 13 shots though in total - but we blocked 7 of them.


The XG in that match was Reading 1.4 V Rotherham 1.5 - that surely pinpoints that the draw was a fair result.

Don't disagree. The general "accepted" term is anything within 0.5 of expected goal is most likely to end in a draw.

Readingfanman
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1368
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 21:00

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Readingfanman » 12 Mar 2019 11:40

I think "luck" and "Likely outcome" are two different things here which have been melded into one.

Whilst Barrow's shot yes, had an unlikely outcome - he did shoot from there and mean to do it, hence not a lucky goal, but an unlikely one. The overall chance of him scoring there if he continued to do it multiple times is probably fairly unlikely however - and a low chance shot.

I think xG has it's merits in explaining that a team may be over performing or under performing where it is actually showing itself to be - but it's also limited by things like game state, whether we're winning or losing, game "importance" and things which cannot be attributed simply.

It also cannot take into account things like a better than average keeper, or less clinical strikers, because it only ever uses an "average" - so the fact that we have had good shot stoppers typically over the last few years means we are likely to outperform against these numbers from time to time if our keeper plays well, and appear "lucky".

Brain Traysers
Member
Posts: 663
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 12:02
Location: Cascadia

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Brain Traysers » 12 Mar 2019 16:05

Stranded
Readingfanman
Hound certainly when I see this:

24th Feb 2019 - Rotherham (H) 1-1 draw despite 53% probability of a loss

I do wonder how on earth they get their stats together. Rotherham had 2 shots on goal in the game, including their goal and about 1 other chance, or even 'situation'. Where as we had about 5 good chances in the last 5 minutes alone

Rotherham did have 13 shots though in total - but we blocked 7 of them.


The XG in that match was Reading 1.4 V Rotherham 1.5 - that surely pinpoints that the draw was a fair result.


Double checked it - according to 538 data the xG scores were 0.99 v 1.27, giving a difference of -0.28 xG. For the 320 games where the xG difference was between -0.25 and -0.30, the team with the lower xG score (Reading in our example) only won on 72 (23%) occasions, compared with drawing 112 (35%) and losing 43% of outcomes.

53% was a typo, and the correct figure for the subsequent (Ipswich game) - apologies. Regardless, the modal outcome for score like that was a loss. For the alternate source the xG diff of -0.1 would indeed suggest a more balanced game (33% of 600 similar games were won, 30% drawn and 37% lost). I haven't researched the different models calibrations so don't have an opinion on the 'best' model at this stage. I just use the dataset that is easiest to use

Brain Traysers
Member
Posts: 663
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 12:02
Location: Cascadia

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Brain Traysers » 12 Mar 2019 16:19

Readingfanman I think "luck" and "Likely outcome" are two different things here which have been melded into one.

Whilst Barrow's shot yes, had an unlikely outcome - he did shoot from there and mean to do it, hence not a lucky goal, but an unlikely one. The overall chance of him scoring there if he continued to do it multiple times is probably fairly unlikely however - and a low chance shot.

I think xG has it's merits in explaining that a team may be over performing or under performing where it is actually showing itself to be - but it's also limited by things like game state, whether we're winning or losing, game "importance" and things which cannot be attributed simply.

It also cannot take into account things like a better than average keeper, or less clinical strikers, because it only ever uses an "average" - so the fact that we have had good shot stoppers typically over the last few years means we are likely to outperform against these numbers from time to time if our keeper plays well, and appear "lucky".


There are some really fair challenges here - at no point have I said xG is perfect, and indeed I have highlighted the flaws very openly - it does however currently remain the most powerful tool to predict the outcome of games. On the 'average' keeper/striker debate, if we are dealing with unlikely probabilities, even if we double the probability (i.e. our striker is twice as good as average - a hugely extreme assumption) of Barrow's shot we move from 3% to 6% - i.e. still a 94% chance of not scoring. Again, this is why he doesn't do it every week - because its very hard to do.

Where we are disagreeing (well, where everyone is agreeing to disagree with me) is why that specific incidence went in. Had it hit the post (a matter of inches wider, only a small number of degrees different on the angle of the strike, easily caused by connecting with the ball a tiny number of milometers differently) we would be more than happy to write that off as bad luck - so why can't we admit there was an element of luck in us benefiting from the very unlikely outcome of a goal at the point he struck it? Luck is defined as befitting from something caused by chance - are we arguing there was no chance of anything other than a goal from that shot?

If I understand correctly, "Jem Karacan was unlucky to hit the post in the play off final" is apparently different to "Barrow was lucky to score". To me they are one and the same, with the narratives purely defined by their respective different binary outcomes.

Brain Traysers
Member
Posts: 663
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 12:02
Location: Cascadia

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Brain Traysers » 12 Mar 2019 16:25

Coppells Lost Coat
Stranded
I think any goal where a player has executed his decision excellently is not luck. He decided to shoot and pulled it off perfectly, if he hadn't it wouldn't have gone in. It would have been lucky if say, it had brushed off a defenders toe deflecting the ball enough to take out of the keepers reach but it was a clean, directed hit into the corner and Barrow deserves the praise and for the goal not to be belittled by calling it lucky.

By that standard any "wonder" goal is lucky rather than being an excellent piece of play.


A lucky goal would have been it the defender tackled him and it pinged off his knee into the top corner.
Barrow meant to shoot, meant for it to go bottom right as his body shape suggested - a pro at this level should be able to hit it into bottom corner more often than not. Shots from that distance are not lucky goals but more unlikely to go in at this level due to the keeper being of a decent standard. He took the chance and paid off.


I respectfully disagree - of 22365 shots from outside the box in premier league matches between 2009 and 2013 (i.e. a higher level full of higher quality players) only 25% of shots were on target, never mind the chosen bottom corner.

Only 3% resulted in goals, giving a 13% conversion rate for shots on target.

Where Barrow shot from those numbers fall to 24% on target and 2% goals.


User avatar
leon
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 29048
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:18
Location: Hips, Lips, Tits, Power

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by leon » 12 Mar 2019 16:29

Brain Traysers
Coppells Lost Coat
Stranded
I think any goal where a player has executed his decision excellently is not luck. He decided to shoot and pulled it off perfectly, if he hadn't it wouldn't have gone in. It would have been lucky if say, it had brushed off a defenders toe deflecting the ball enough to take out of the keepers reach but it was a clean, directed hit into the corner and Barrow deserves the praise and for the goal not to be belittled by calling it lucky.

By that standard any "wonder" goal is lucky rather than being an excellent piece of play.


A lucky goal would have been it the defender tackled him and it pinged off his knee into the top corner.
Barrow meant to shoot, meant for it to go bottom right as his body shape suggested - a pro at this level should be able to hit it into bottom corner more often than not. Shots from that distance are not lucky goals but more unlikely to go in at this level due to the keeper being of a decent standard. He took the chance and paid off.


I respectfully disagree - of 22365 shots from outside the box in premier league matches between 2009 and 2013 (i.e. a higher level full of higher quality players) only 25% of shots were on target, never mind the chosen bottom corner.

Only 3% resulted in goals, giving a 13% conversion rate for shots on target.

Where Barrow shot from those numbers fall to 24% on target and 2% goals.


And all of these shots were taken by players who all play in the same position and have the same technical and physical skills?

Brain Traysers
Member
Posts: 663
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 12:02
Location: Cascadia

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Brain Traysers » 12 Mar 2019 16:55

leon
And all of these shots were taken by players who all play in the same position and have the same technical and physical skills?


I have no idea - but given how infrequently Barrow does this I'm happy to guess the median shot was taken by a technically better player who is rightly being rewarded for that by being paid premier league wages. Barrow managed 1 goal over 51 appearances (2193 mins) in understats figures from his time with Swansea in the Premier League.

1.15 shots per 90 over 2193 gives us 28 shots, only one of which went in (3.6% conversion from all shots including the two he missed from the 6y box).

Small sample but only 13 of those shots were outside the area - 0 went in, and only 2 were on target with a further 3 blocked. 8 therefore missed the target.

There were two from an almost identical position to the weekend - one saved and one missed the target completely.

Brain Traysers
Member
Posts: 663
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 12:02
Location: Cascadia

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Brain Traysers » 12 Mar 2019 17:10

Vision And the Rotherham goal.?

Baker nut-megging an opposition player whilst facing our own goal, then Martinez passing from directly under his own goal line with an opposition player breathing down his neck, 3 passes later it's in the back of the opponents net.

The probability of that happening would be practically zero but is it "lucky" to score one of the best team goals we've seen in some time or an indication of what the players are capable of?

I take the point that scoring goals with truly outstanding pieces of skill isn't likely to happen every week but we've score 6 goals in our last 3 games and they've all been completely different in their construction and execution. Is that really luck?


The Rotherham goal is actually an excellent example. A superbly executed move, and the whole point of the tactics Gomes has installed - play out from the back against a team who will press high, creating space and being able to effectively 'counter-attack' despite starting with possession. This is very in vogue at the moment - I can't find the clip but there is one german team who knocked the ball back from a kick off, teased the opposition into pressing then broke the lines and scored a 3 on 2. Superb tactics if your players are good enough to execute.

Nevertheless, hardly any chances result from us playing out from the back, and I think this might be the only example of it directly leading to a goal, certainly in recent memory. I interpret these tactics as changing the probability of scoring, given possession at the back, as increasing slightly - lets assume for the sake of example from 1% to 2% (feels far too high since we don't score a free flowing move from every 50 possessions). That still leaves 98% unexplained - I'm choosing to believe a huge part of that is therefore luck, especially for that move to pay off in a close game and win us points, rather than a consolation goal when already 3-0 down.

I believe others are choosing to believe that we opt not to do it on the 98% of occasions for some reason.

User avatar
NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 9519
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Wherever Nameless may be.

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by NewCorkSeth » 12 Mar 2019 17:17

Brain Traysers
Coppells Lost Coat
Stranded
I think any goal where a player has executed his decision excellently is not luck. He decided to shoot and pulled it off perfectly, if he hadn't it wouldn't have gone in. It would have been lucky if say, it had brushed off a defenders toe deflecting the ball enough to take out of the keepers reach but it was a clean, directed hit into the corner and Barrow deserves the praise and for the goal not to be belittled by calling it lucky.

By that standard any "wonder" goal is lucky rather than being an excellent piece of play.


A lucky goal would have been it the defender tackled him and it pinged off his knee into the top corner.
Barrow meant to shoot, meant for it to go bottom right as his body shape suggested - a pro at this level should be able to hit it into bottom corner more often than not. Shots from that distance are not lucky goals but more unlikely to go in at this level due to the keeper being of a decent standard. He took the chance and paid off.


I respectfully disagree - of 22365 shots from outside the box in premier league matches between 2009 and 2013 (i.e. a higher level full of higher quality players) only 25% of shots were on target, never mind the chosen bottom corner.

Only 3% resulted in goals, giving a 13% conversion rate for shots on target.

Where Barrow shot from those numbers fall to 24% on target and 2% goals.

Yeah but Bobby Zamora was in the premier league for several of those seasons so that probably throws the numbers off quite a bit. Let's safely presume 12000 of those long distance shots were him and another 2-3000 were Charlie Adam. Numbers dont look so good now eh?


Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Nameless » 12 Mar 2019 17:23

Brain Traysers
Vision And the Rotherham goal.?

Baker nut-megging an opposition player whilst facing our own goal, then Martinez passing from directly under his own goal line with an opposition player breathing down his neck, 3 passes later it's in the back of the opponents net.

The probability of that happening would be practically zero but is it "lucky" to score one of the best team goals we've seen in some time or an indication of what the players are capable of?

I take the point that scoring goals with truly outstanding pieces of skill isn't likely to happen every week but we've score 6 goals in our last 3 games and they've all been completely different in their construction and execution. Is that really luck?


The Rotherham goal is actually an excellent example. A superbly executed move, and the whole point of the tactics Gomes has installed - play out from the back against a team who will press high, creating space and being able to effectively 'counter-attack' despite starting with possession. This is very in vogue at the moment - I can't find the clip but there is one german team who knocked the ball back from a kick off, teased the opposition into pressing then broke the lines and scored a 3 on 2. Superb tactics if your players are good enough to execute.

Nevertheless, hardly any chances result from us playing out from the back, and I think this might be the only example of it directly leading to a goal, certainly in recent memory. I interpret these tactics as changing the probability of scoring, given possession at the back, as increasing slightly - lets assume for the sake of example from 1% to 2% (feels far too high since we don't score a free flowing move from every 50 possessions). That still leaves 98% unexplained - I'm choosing to believe a huge part of that is therefore luck, especially for that move to pay off in a close game and win us points, rather than a consolation goal when already 3-0 down.

I believe others are choosing to believe that we opt not to do it on the 98% of occasions for some reason.


I think it is your definition of ‘luck’ that needs to be challenged to be honest.....

User avatar
From Despair To Where?
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 22959
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: See me in m'pants and ting

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by From Despair To Where? » 12 Mar 2019 17:34

Brain Traysers
Coppells Lost Coat
Stranded
I think any goal where a player has executed his decision excellently is not luck. He decided to shoot and pulled it off perfectly, if he hadn't it wouldn't have gone in. It would have been lucky if say, it had brushed off a defenders toe deflecting the ball enough to take out of the keepers reach but it was a clean, directed hit into the corner and Barrow deserves the praise and for the goal not to be belittled by calling it lucky.

By that standard any "wonder" goal is lucky rather than being an excellent piece of play.


A lucky goal would have been it the defender tackled him and it pinged off his knee into the top corner.
Barrow meant to shoot, meant for it to go bottom right as his body shape suggested - a pro at this level should be able to hit it into bottom corner more often than not. Shots from that distance are not lucky goals but more unlikely to go in at this level due to the keeper being of a decent standard. He took the chance and paid off.


I respectfully disagree - of 22365 shots from outside the box in premier league matches between 2009 and 2013 (i.e. a higher level full of higher quality players) only 25% of shots were on target, never mind the chosen bottom corner.

Only 3% resulted in goals, giving a 13% conversion rate for shots on target.

Where Barrow shot from those numbers fall to 24% on target and 2% goals.


If you make an analogy to golf, holing out from an approach shot is lucky but getting the ball to within 10 feet is down to skill.

Having the skill to get the ball in the right place increases the likelihood of being lucky.

Brain Traysers
Member
Posts: 663
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 12:02
Location: Cascadia

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Brain Traysers » 12 Mar 2019 17:59

Nameless
I think it is your definition of ‘luck’ that needs to be challenged to be honest.....


Sure - go for it, I'm always open to rethink.

I'm working with:
Oxford English Dictionary Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.


Taking a shot from long range is for me a chance - hence the expression "it's a long shot" for something that has a low probability of paying off. Barrow didn't choose to score, he choose to take a chance. It paid off - in part because of his skill in successfully executing his intentions (assuming he was aiming for that bottom corner - we can't know for sure), but there must be a reason it doesn't happen all the time.

Let's not forget, we even refer to opportunities to score as 'chances'...

Has anyone got a different definition for me to think about, or a different interpretation of the above? After all, lots of people are telling me mine is wrong.

Stepping away from the specific Barrow goal - what about the corner routine that paid off? Was there no luck at all involved in (i) Meite being free (yes some skill to lose his man too), the ball dropping exactly there (yes some skill to hit it into the right area, and luckily Meite had anticipated that), (iii) the defender getting tangled up (+nothing given by ref), (iv) Meite making a good connection with the ball and (iv) Wigan opting not to have a man on the post? If not, then we should have just done that for the other two corners we had too.

Brain Traysers
Member
Posts: 663
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 12:02
Location: Cascadia

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Brain Traysers » 12 Mar 2019 18:05

From Despair To Where?
If you make an analogy to golf, holing out from an approach shot is lucky but getting the ball to within 10 feet is down to skill.

Having the skill to get the ball in the right place increases the likelihood of being lucky.


I agree almost entirely, but would add one word - "getting the ball to within 10 feet consistently is down to skill". I think the debate here is ultimately centered around those probabilities - did Barrow's inherent skill increase the probability from 3% to 6%, or 3% to 60% (in which case a goal becomes more likely than not, but then the luck discussion shifts to him/us being unlucky on the 40% of occasions that don't result in a goal).

I'm not arguing there was 0 skill involved, I'm arguing there was some skill and a lot of luck.


User avatar
leon
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 29048
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:18
Location: Hips, Lips, Tits, Power

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by leon » 12 Mar 2019 18:08

Jesus Christ on a bicycle.

User avatar
Platypuss
Hob Nob Moderator
Posts: 8203
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 21:46
Location: No one cares about your creative hub, so get your fukcin' hedge cut

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Platypuss » 12 Mar 2019 18:13

If you intend to do it, it's not luck.

User avatar
From Despair To Where?
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 22959
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: See me in m'pants and ting

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by From Despair To Where? » 12 Mar 2019 18:29


Brain Traysers
Member
Posts: 663
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 12:02
Location: Cascadia

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Brain Traysers » 12 Mar 2019 18:40

Ha - ok points taken - I'll stick to my own thread

User avatar
NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 9519
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Wherever Nameless may be.

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by NewCorkSeth » 12 Mar 2019 18:45

Platypuss If you intend to do it, it's not luck.

Uhm. Whut?

Brain Traysers
Member
Posts: 663
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 12:02
Location: Cascadia

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by Brain Traysers » 12 Mar 2019 19:05

NewCorkSeth
Platypuss If you intend to do it, it's not luck.

Uhm. Whut?


Don't go there - its not worth it :lol:

User avatar
NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 9519
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Wherever Nameless may be.

Re: MATCHWATCH : Wigan Athletic (h) sponsored by Nicky Forster

by NewCorkSeth » 12 Mar 2019 19:08

Brain Traysers
NewCorkSeth
Platypuss If you intend to do it, it's not luck.

Uhm. Whut?


Don't go there - its not worth it :lol:

I thought that "jumping into ongoing arguments to nitpick over poorly phrased thoughts" was part of the hobnob mission statement.

200 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 311 guests

It is currently 29 Mar 2024 05:12