Stats and stuff

[Lost Leopard Spot]

say for example Man City have made fewer tackles than any other team in their division, can be construed to back the proposition that Man City were dominant because their midfield kept possession and didn't need to make tackles...

Indeed they have (12.3pg). Then it's West Brom (12.7), Burnley (12.8 ) and Man U (13), which backs up LLS's point while also suggesting that things can happen for a number of reasons.

Good grief! I made that up off the top of my head as a purely hypothetical example. I never even considered it might be factual. Gobsmacked.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

say for example Man City have made fewer tackles than any other team in their division, can be construed to back the proposition that Man City were dominant because their midfield kept possession and didn't need to make tackles...

Indeed they have (12.3pg). Then it's West Brom (12.7), Burnley (12.8 ) and Man U (13), which backs up LLS's point while also suggesting that things can happen for a number of reasons.

Good grief! I made that up off the top of my head as a purely hypothetical example. I never even considered it might be factual. Gobsmacked.

Heh. Citeh regularly have high possession, so your quick hypothetical theory – they don't need to tackle much - might actually have some truth to it... but on the other hand, West Brom's possession rate is pathologically low. What I'd suggest for the Baggies is that they tend to play such a formulaic low block (back four, usually made up of at least centre-backs, defending the width of the penalty area at the edge of the penalty area; midfield two sat deep in front of them) that they simply don't commit to too many tackles, letting teams play it out in front of them. You're more likely to tackle - rather than block, intercept, clear or head it – if both you and your opponent are on the run; the Baggies' phalanx defence tends to minimise that occurrence.

[BWFC_Insane]

^
Yes, stats can be used to develop theories and ideas. However, to use the example you quoted, you already needed a theory (that we were losing games because our midfield was weak) in order to give meaning to the stat. The very same stat if applied in a different context, say for example Man City have made fewer tackles than any other team in their division, can be construed to back the proposition that Man City were dominant because their midfield kept possession and didn't need to make tackles... See what I mean, stats are only meaningful when used to back up a theory. Stats are correct but meaningless. Theories are meaningful but can be wrong or (provisionally) right.

Indeed. But you could take that stat without the theory and investigate it, interrogate it and develop a theory. Sure you can't do that with the one stat in isolation. But sometimes without that stat you'd never have investigated or interrogated what was happening.

I agree entirely. Stats are a fact. They can lead to theory. My contention is simple: theory is meaningful, statistics aren't. I think maybe we aren't disagreeing, just not agreeing on what is meaningful: Factuality does not equal meaningfulness!

I agree with you. Its just that we can now use some of the stats DSB is providing to interrogate the various theories on this forum. Which will ultimately be as pointless as everything else discussed, but may at least be interesting and offer better avenues than "parky out" "parky in" type discussions.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Been so busy with other stuff (including, y'know, work) that I didn't fully read one of the links I posted before - to Experimental361's divisional Championship analysis. I screengrabbed the red-to-green scatter graph with club colours dotted hither and yon – you might remember Burton and Ipswich were isolated. Well, later in the blog he posts one adjusted for expected goals (ie the rated 'quality' of chances rather than just sheer number of attempts) and, well...

2017-09-27-ch-eg.png (115.98 KiB) Viewed 3231 times

Burton seem to be struggling badly with the classic double bind: not creating enough chances while allowing their opponents too many. They're out of the drop zone at the minute but only just; with the teams from 17th to 22nd separated by just one point. I'll be honest, I haven't looked at the actual league table in a while - I rarely bother when there's no point: we're bottom and staying there until we start winning - and I notice the bottom third of the table is starting to peel off, with Hull and Sunderland and Reading perhaps startled to find themselves in trouble. But then, Reading massively overachieved last season - they shots for/against totals were very similar to Blackburn's.

Anyway, it feels to me like there's a gang of systematic underachievers just above us, and it might just be possible to catch them... if we start winning. But that requires two things: effective attack and resolute defence. And, well, oh dear.

2017-09-27-ch-att.png (93 KiB) Viewed 3231 times

"There are three standout wasteful finishers in the division so far," says Experimental361's Ben Mayhew, "with Bolton having had a predictably horrible start. The Trotters haven’t created much but still look to have been unlucky in front of goal and their fortunes should improve." I'm not sure whether to feel heartened or slightly patronised. Meanwhile, at the back:

2017-09-27-ch-def.png (72.8 KiB) Viewed 3231 times

"Struggling Bolton haven’t actually allowed that many attempts at their goal, but along with Hull have been conceding frustratingly regularly." Not half, Ben, not half.

2017-09-27-ch-eg.png (115.98 KiB) Viewed 3231 times

[Armchair Wanderer]

0.8 goals per game... if only!

I don't mind a bit of stat, but these graphs aren't very cheery, are they? I challenge anyone to find some stats or graphs that will make happy viewing! Hottest pies? Friendliest stadium staff? Shortest distance between the train station and the stadium??

[Tombwfc]

I did wonder the other day whether someone was doing expected goals for the Championship. I don't love it, but I do think it's a better measurement than just looking at how many shots we have.

Anecdotally, we seem to go several games without creating a half decent chance. The first half against Brentford is the only time in this run of defeats that I recall us forcing the opposition keeper into a save.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I did wonder the other day whether someone was doing expected goals for the Championship. I don't love it, but I do think it's a better measurement than just looking at how many shots we have.

That's about where I'm at, Tom. The qualitative element of it slightly worries me but it's a means to a more accurate end.

I haven't actually find any published xG results for the Champo as yet - just this Experimental361 analysis thereof, which is obviously at another gatekeeper's remove. If anyone does find the bare figures, I and this thread would be happy to hear it...

[TonyDomingos]

Well, I for one applaud DSB for starting up this thread!

I take your point LLS that observing averages, rates and frequencies doesn’t always translate into what actually happens. But, for example, if you look at our “goals for” over recent games, it suggests strongly that our next result will be “- Bolton 0”. Let’s review again at 5pm on Saturday.

Unfortunately, the “goals for” stats proved to be a very accurate indicator. In better news, in 8 days we’ve lost 3-0, 2-0, 1-0, so clearly improving!

[malcd1]

Well, I for one applaud DSB for starting up this thread!

I take your point LLS that observing averages, rates and frequencies doesn’t always translate into what actually happens. But, for example, if you look at our “goals for” over recent games, it suggests strongly that our next result will be “- Bolton 0”. Let’s review again at 5pm on Saturday.

Unfortunately, the “goals for” stats proved to be a very accurate indicator. In better news, in 8 days we’ve lost 3-0, 2-0, 1-0, so clearly improving!

Hopefully if we improve further we might scrape a 0-0 draw. We can but hope.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Ken's needlessly narky kolumn komments had me hitting the books. Some historical stats are fairly meaningless, like "they haven't won at this ground since 1950" – half that team will be dead, there's little relevance there. But there is undoubtedly some historical importance to the worst-start-ever statistics, isn't there? That a team can be *so* outclassed, it breaks records for unremitting incompetence?

In fact, we've been privileged to see some really quite epoch-definingly bad starts in recent seasons.
• 2013: first 10 were W0 D5 L5, one win in first 13, described as our worst in 111 years.
• 2014: first 10 were W1 D2 L7, at which point Dougie was hoiked. We still lost the next game.
• 2015: first 10 were W1 D5 L4, which was bad enough, but first 23 were W1 D11 L11.
• 2017: first 10 were W0 D2 L8.

So if you combine the first 10 games from each of our last four seasons at this level, we're W2 D14 L24.

And that takes us right back to the turn of the millennium with the sole exception of Coyle's sole second-tier season start (W3 D2 L5), when we had a Premier League squad on Premier League wages whom the manager and chairman had set a target of 92 points. For the record, here's the team from Coyle's last game. This lot underachieved, and it's been getting worse ever since.

Adam Bogdan, Tyrone Mears, Matt Mills, Zat Knight, Stephen Warnock, Chris Eagles, Keith Andrews (Darren Pratley 79), Jay Spearing (Chung-yong Lee 90), Mark Davies, Kevin Davies, David Ngog (Benik Afobe 70). Subs not used: Andy Lonergan, Tim Ream, Sam Ricketts, Marvin Sordell.

[BWFC_Insane]

Ken's needlessly narky kolumn komments had me hitting the books. Some historical stats are fairly meaningless, like "they haven't won at this ground since 1950" – half that team will be dead, there's little relevance there. But there is undoubtedly some historical importance to the worst-start-ever statistics, isn't there? That a team can be *so* outclassed, it breaks records for unremitting incompetence?

In fact, we've been privileged to see some really quite epoch-definingly bad starts in recent seasons.
• 2013: first 10 were W0 D5 L5, one win in first 13, described as our worst in 111 years.
• 2014: first 10 were W1 D2 L7, at which point Dougie was hoiked. We still lost the next game.
• 2015: first 10 were W1 D5 L4, which was bad enough, but first 23 were W1 D11 L11.
• 2017: first 10 were W0 D2 L8.

So if you combine the first 10 games from each of our last four seasons at this level, we're W2 D14 L24.

And that takes us right back to the turn of the millennium with the sole exception of Coyle's sole second-tier season start (W3 D2 L5), when we had a Premier League squad on Premier League wages whom the manager and chairman had set a target of 92 points. For the record, here's the team from Coyle's last game. This lot underachieved, and it's been getting worse ever since.

Adam Bogdan, Tyrone Mears, Matt Mills, Zat Knight, Stephen Warnock, Chris Eagles, Keith Andrews (Darren Pratley 79), Jay Spearing (Chung-yong Lee 90), Mark Davies, Kevin Davies, David Ngog (Benik Afobe 70). Subs not used: Andy Lonergan, Tim Ream, Sam Ricketts, Marvin Sordell.

DSB, do you think we've had under achieving sides...or has it been a case of grossly overpaying and overrating players. Probably something of a mix of the two. But I look at that Coyle side you've listed. How many have gone on to play at a high level subsequently? Sure some have gone on to retire or whatever (though perhaps that says something in itself)....but to my knowledge only Chungy is in the top flight out of that lot (and he's at the side with 0 points and has hardly been a regular).

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Adam Bogdan, Tyrone Mears, Matt Mills, Zat Knight, Stephen Warnock, Chris Eagles, Keith Andrews (Darren Pratley 79), Jay Spearing (Chung-yong Lee 90), Mark Davies, Kevin Davies, David Ngog (Benik Afobe 70). Subs not used: Andy Lonergan, Tim Ream, Sam Ricketts, Marvin Sordell.

DSB, do you think we've had under achieving sides...or has it been a case of grossly overpaying and overrating players. Probably something of a mix of the two. But I look at that Coyle side you've listed. How many have gone on to play at a high level subsequently? Sure some have gone on to retire or whatever (though perhaps that says something in itself)....but to my knowledge only Chungy is in the top flight out of that lot (and he's at the side with 0 points and has hardly been a regular).

Good question. Overpayment and underachievement are opposing sides of the same cliché; much of the absence of criticism levelled at PP and his team has been because of the widely-publicised money troubles, leaving the clear impression that this is a D3 team struggling in D2. Had PP spent twelvety billion pounds to get 2 points, pretty much the only reason not to bin him would be the old problem of a new man using the last bloke's expensive misfits.

Which has been part of the problem for half a decade. You make a fair point on those names: not many have gone on to excel – although you're slightly underselling Afobe, who's now made north of 50 Premier League appearances for Bournemouth – but you also hint at another factor: age. 6 October 2012 is a loooong time ago: for example, Zat Knight is 37. Of that starting XI, only Bogdan (Liverpool), Mears (Atlanta), Mills (Forest) and Warnock (Burton) still have a club. Point is that team may not have had potential with hindsight, but it certainly had history: all the starters had significant Premier experience, and can only be presumed to have been on significant Premier wages.

We know all too well what happened. We were spending more than we should on players who did less than they could. Whether that's more about their low return or our high investment is merely quibbling over the colour of the stripes on the Titanic deckchairs. But it seems to me that a lot of clubs are at risk of following our path, because the Championship's overspend has only increased, and there's still only three golden tickets per season.

[BWFC_Insane]

Adam Bogdan, Tyrone Mears, Matt Mills, Zat Knight, Stephen Warnock, Chris Eagles, Keith Andrews (Darren Pratley 79), Jay Spearing (Chung-yong Lee 90), Mark Davies, Kevin Davies, David Ngog (Benik Afobe 70). Subs not used: Andy Lonergan, Tim Ream, Sam Ricketts, Marvin Sordell.

DSB, do you think we've had under achieving sides...or has it been a case of grossly overpaying and overrating players. Probably something of a mix of the two. But I look at that Coyle side you've listed. How many have gone on to play at a high level subsequently? Sure some have gone on to retire or whatever (though perhaps that says something in itself)....but to my knowledge only Chungy is in the top flight out of that lot (and he's at the side with 0 points and has hardly been a regular).

Good question. Overpayment and underachievement are opposing sides of the same cliché; much of the absence of criticism levelled at PP and his team has been because of the widely-publicised money troubles, leaving the clear impression that this is a D3 team struggling in D2. Had PP spent twelvety billion pounds to get 2 points, pretty much the only reason not to bin him would be the old problem of a new man using the last bloke's expensive misfits.

Which has been part of the problem for half a decade. You make a fair point on those names: not many have gone on to excel – although you're slightly underselling Afobe, who's now made north of 50 Premier League appearances for Bournemouth – but you also hint at another factor: age. 6 October 2012 is a loooong time ago: for example, Zat Knight is 37. Of that starting XI, only Bogdan (Liverpool), Mears (Atlanta), Mills (Forest) and Warnock (Burton) still have a club. Point is that team may not have had potential with hindsight, but it certainly had history: all the starters had significant Premier experience, and can only be presumed to have been on significant Premier wages.

We know all too well what happened. We were spending more than we should on players who did less than they could. Whether that's more about their low return or our high investment is merely quibbling over the colour of the stripes on the Titanic deckchairs. But it seems to me that a lot of clubs are at risk of following our path, because the Championship's overspend has only increased, and there's still only three golden tickets per season.

I think it was a case of simply poor judgement. Assembling the wrong group of players. To compound that we also vastly overpaid to assemble it.

I think its important to an extent to recognise the distinction. For years people have said "our team should be doing better with the players we've got". For years. Last season we should have "walked the league" and any deviation from that has been the manager's fault.

I think that thinking is probably challenged when looking at that team and the movement of players from it subsequently. The judgement of our various manager's recruitment in general has been poor. One has to question equally if the right environments have been provided by Eddie/Phil and now Ken to do better. In some cases I suspect not.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

That team certainly subsequently underachieved individually and collectively. They were Premier League players on Premier League wages – the kind of opponents we're now facing, albeit the differential has grown since.

[BWFC_Insane]

That team certainly subsequently underachieved individually and collectively. They were Premier League players on Premier League wages – the kind of opponents we're now facing, albeit the differential has grown since.

Take it further. Spearing who was one of our players cited last season as an example of why we were far too good for that league, by our own fans, is training at league one Blackpool now. With no club.

I think for years we've thought we are far better than we are.

Bluntly, I think the squad we've got is bottom 3 of this league quality. At best. It's top 6 of league one. Bottom three of this league. Take a key player or two out and it's rock bottom. That's what we've got. That Coyle side was at bets mid table championship. We've overrated ourselves massively. People used to say players like Eagles were the reason we should be a premiership side...or challenging the top two in the championship at least. Reality is he was not anywhere near close to that level.

I've watched a few championship games on TV this year. Without any hyperbole the majority of teams I've seen, not one of our players would get in. Not one.

[Tombwfc]

Surely the reason Spearing hasn't got a club is because of the wages he wants? Otherwise he'd have signed here months back. The majority of League One clubs couldn't afford him, in the same way they couldn't have afforded a lot of the players we had last year.

[TANGODANCER]

I've watched a few championship games on TV this year. Without any hyperbole the majority of teams I've seen, not one of our players would get in. Not one.

Suppose they (our players) had better players around them? How many of those other team had/have a core selection that's been together a while and understand each other's play? How many have kids in them, bargain basement journeymen, loanees and had embargos preventing them buying quality players? How many of them are skint? Just wondering....

[BWFC_Insane]

Surely the reason Spearing hasn't got a club is because of the wages he wants? Otherwise he'd have signed here months back. The majority of League One clubs couldn't afford him, in the same way they couldn't have afforded a lot of the players we had last year.

He can't get the wages we paid him as a player not good enough to keep us in the championship. Think about that for a minute, how much did we pay for a player no team wants now?

[BWFC_Insane]

I've watched a few championship games on TV this year. Without any hyperbole the majority of teams I've seen, not one of our players would get in. Not one.

Suppose they (our players) had better players around them? How many of those other team had/have a core selection that's been together a while and understand each other's play? How many have kids in them, bargain basement journeymen, loanees and had embargos preventing them buying quality players? How many of them are skint? Just wondering....

It's a good point. Still judging on what we know, they'd not get in.

As for the rest I agree. Embargo and being skint has led to this.

[irie Cee Bee]

Very Interesting discussion. Clearly, without the addition of a couple Championship Quality players to the squad we have, Phill will need to perform a miracle to keep us up. January transfer window might be too late.

Hope Ameobi, Henry, Vela and Buckley (If he stays fit) prove themselves to be Championship Quality players in the short term to keep us in striking distance until the window opens.