Will the goals dry up?

[Leveller]

11 minutes ago, Neo said:

This is only one stat though - what we do now compared to last year (in general) is concede less.

Does it matter if the goals are less frequent if we still convert occasionally and keep clean sheets? Nobody will care about the size of the goal difference if we continue to get points on the board.

I suppose what I’m saying is surely only one stat cannot determine if a team is over-performing? 

 

One can't, but surely the efficiency of turning possession into goals is as good as any?

[JamesBCFC]

10 minutes ago, Neo said:

This is only one stat though - what we do now compared to last year (in general) is concede less.

Does it matter if the goals are less frequent if we still convert occasionally and keep clean sheets? Nobody will care about the size of the goal difference if we continue to get points on the board.

I suppose what I’m saying is surely only one stat cannot determine if a team is over-performing? 

 

Valid point.

We are about 6th on the form table, but still waiting for an updated defensive graph (at least it wasnt there when I checked in earlier).

However I would say that conceding 5 goals in our last 3 games (all comps) suggests our defence isnt going the clean sheet route.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Dr Balls said:

Not sure if this really matters tbh. We know that Bobby is having the best season of his career so far, while Diedhiou was just finding his mojo before the injury. Flint has to be one of the highest, if not the highest scoring central defender in all 4 leagues, while I am hoping Milan Djuric can "do a Matt Smith" and propel us up the table. If O'Dowda's upturn in form can also result in more goals then all the better.

And the only statistic that really matters is our league position which is looking the healthiest in 10 years. Plus we are sharing the goals around and need to keep defending like every goal conceded is a personal insult to their professional abilities. 

Keep this up and we can look forward to a really enjoyable and possibly even successful season.

Interesting you mention a certain Matt Smith.  For all of his 6’6" lump of a centre forward, he was quite decent on the deck, and left footed to boot.  A bit underrated, and a little bit more mobile than several gave him credit for.

Enter Milan Djúric, not dissimilar in our view of him, but I do think he’s up a notch on Matt.  @GrahamC has often said he thinks Milan is decent, whereas I’ve worried a bit about his mobility, or lack of it.  I think in hindsight he was playing carrying injuries, that we never really dealt with.  Early days, two sub apps, but i’m prepared to wear some rose tinted specs at the moment.  Looks like he can run the forward line, and give us an ‘out-ball’ when playing out if trouble is not an option. 

34 minutes ago, Shtanley said:

Brentford are presumably the most interesting team to look at when it comes to all this. 

....and on the rise

33 minutes ago, spudski said:

Some people turn all 'borish' and anti something, when they don't understand something...it's a way of making themselves feel better ;-)

Was it you or @Shtanley bugging up Brentford’s playoff chances?

19 minutes ago, spudski said:

I said this a couple weeks ago and got shot down in flames. I still reckon they will.

It was you. They are the type of side to get on a run, win home or away.

[1bristolcity]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

Took the words...

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Valid point.

We are about 6th on the form table, but still waiting for an updated defensive graph (at least it wasnt there when I checked in earlier).

However I would say that conceding 5 goals in our last 3 games (all comps) suggests our defence isnt going the clean sheet route.

I really like the 361site, the bit I don’t get is how they value / rate each chance to get the expected goals.  I guess that’s the data they don’t publicise, because it probably comes at a cost.  

I had a bit of tweet-tennis with the gut over Bobby Reid’s data, I still think it is wrong.  I can’t see how 7 goals in 13 games (minus some minutes can equate to less than 0.5 goals per 90minutes. He hasn’t scored a penalty as far as I can remember?

[glynriley]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I really like the 361site, the bit I don’t get is how they value / rate each chance to get the expected goals.  I guess that’s the data they don’t publicise, because it probably comes at a cost.  

I had a bit of tweet-tennis with the gut over Bobby Reid’s data, I still think it is wrong.  I can’t see how 7 goals in 13 games (minus some minutes can equate to less than 0.5 goals per 90minutes. He hasn’t scored a penalty as far as I can remember?

Scored a pen v Derby didn't he?

[REDOXO]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I really like the 361site, the bit I don’t get is how they value / rate each chance to get the expected goals.  I guess that’s the data they don’t publicise, because it probably comes at a cost.  

I had a bit of tweet-tennis with the gut over Bobby Reid’s data, I still think it is wrong.  I can’t see how 7 goals in 13 games (minus some minutes can equate to less than 0.5 goals per 90minutes. He hasn’t scored a penalty as far as I can remember?

I think he has!

anyway as for the goals drying up theory. There is always going to be a period. It's inevitable. 

Either way it's LJs job to see they don't. We have been lucky with turnover but that was always the plan. Minimum two players for every position. So kudos to us!

[Phileas Fogg]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Interesting you mention a certain Matt Smith.  For all of his 6’6" lump of a centre forward, he was quite decent on the deck, and left footed to boot.  A bit underrated, and a little bit more mobile than several gave him credit for.

Enter Milan Djúric, not dissimilar in our view of him, but I do think he’s up a notch on Matt.  @GrahamC has often said he thinks Milan is decent, whereas I’ve worried a bit about his mobility, or lack of it.  I think in hindsight he was playing carrying injuries, that we never really dealt with.  Early days, two sub apps, but i’m prepared to wear some rose tinted specs at the moment.  Looks like he can run the forward line, and give us an ‘out-ball’ when playing out if trouble is not an option. 

....and on the rise

Was it you or @Shtanley bugging up Brentford’s playoff chances?

It was you. They are the type of side to get on a run, win home or away.

I think Brentford will get promoted within the next 3 seasons. They're a Huddersfield in waiting imo.

(For the record, I also think we're a Brighton in waiting)

[JamesBCFC]

34 minutes ago, spudski said:

I said this a couple weeks ago and got shot down in flames. I still reckon they will.

Conversley, I had said before the Ipswich game I had no idea why everyone was so concerned about them and that they would fall away pretty sharpish.

That said, I didn't expect such a convincing result over them.

[Notbarrymanc]

58 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I think your overcomplicating a very simple formula.

Psuedointellectual mumbo jumbo. 

Irony. 

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Conversley, I had said before the Ipswich game I had no idea why everyone was so concerned about them and that they would fall away pretty sharpish.

That said, I didn't expect such a convincing result over them.

Those experimental 361 stats are actually very good at giving a true reflection of form.

Both Ipswich and Brentford are the two teams not conforming to chances created.

Ipswich will finish lower mid table imo.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, glynriley said:

Scored a pen v Derby didn't he?

Aha, I missed that game.

[JamesBCFC]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

Those experimental 361 stats are actually very good at giving a true reflection of form.

Both Ipswich and Brentford are the two teams not conforming to chances created.

Ipswich will finish lower mid table imo.

They are by no means perfect and you have to know what to look for and take away from it, but they are very good.

Last year, when Fulham were struggling and not long after we beat them 4-0 they were down as strong favourites by the E361 formula for their match away at either Brighton or Newcastle. All season up to that point they were saying Fulham would be a top end team.

At that point I was ready to write it off as an error, or an anomaly but they got it right and Fulham not only won that game, but duly shot up the table.

 

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

They are by no means perfect and you have to know what to look for and take away from it, but they are very good.

Last year, when Fulham were struggling and not long after we beat them 4-0 they were down as strong favourites by the E361 formula for their match away at either Brighton or Newcastle. All season up to that point they were saying Fulham would be a top end team.

At that point I was ready to write it off as an error, or an anomaly but they got it right and Fulham not only won that game, but duly shot up the table.

 

Agreed...I noticed that as well.

[Grey Fox]

We as a team are not reliant or one or two goal scorerers, fifteen have contributed so far this season, so I don't think this is a concern

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

We as a team are not reliant or one or two goal scorerers, fifteen have contributed so far this season, so I don't think this is a concern

Nor has Pisano contributed yet.

[ThreeWordCityNerd]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Mumbo jumbo.......

We are where are because of points we've accumulated and the league table doesn't lie.

Maybe keeping things simple isn't your forte.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Robbored]

21 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

We as a team are not reliant or one or two goal scorerers, fifteen have contributed so far this season, so I don't think this is a concern

Of course it's not a concern at least not to most of us all except James of course.

[JamesBCFC]

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

Of course it's not a concern at least not to most of us all except James of course.

Talking shit really is a talent of yours.

Once again you have completely ignored what was actually said, in favour of trying to stir things.

[Phileas Fogg]

16 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Of course it's not a concern at least not to most of us all except James of course.

Well of course you're trolling as usual - but if you don't understand the concept, why do you keep commenting and disrupting an interesting discussion?

[spudski]

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

I think your overcomplicating a very simple formula.

Psuedointellectual mumbo jumbo. 

This 'mumbo jumbo' as you call it, is the type of statistics that analysts in football clubs look at every day.

Managers and coach's rely on it to help understand certain aspects of the game that aren't necessarily easy to spot with the eye.

We have invested in analysts, and it's one of the reasons we have become a much better professionally run club.

It reflects in the results and performances on the pitch.

Part of the reason Quote...'We are where are because of points we've accumulated and the league table doesn't lie.' is down to such analysis of statistics, both of our own team and the opposition. 

[Robbored]

50 minutes ago, spudski said:

This 'mumbo jumbo' as you call it, is the type of statistics that analysts in football clubs look at every day.

Managers and coach's rely on it to help understand certain aspects of the game that aren't necessarily easy to spot with the eye.

We have invested in analysts, and it's one of the reasons we have become a much better professionally run club.

It reflects in the results and performances on the pitch.

Part of the reason Quote...'We are where are because of points we've accumulated and the league table doesn't lie.' is down to such analysis of statistics, both of our own team and the opposition. 

Of course I understand the purpose of statical analysis within modern football and how the data is assessed. It's a major tool in the armoury of all managers and something that quite rightly LJ takes very seriously.

That said arguing that we shouldn't be where we are because of statics is a contradiction or mumbo jumbo as I would cal it.

[ExiledAjax]

25 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Of course I understand the purpose of statical analysis within modern football and how the data is assessed. It's a major tool in the armoury of all managers and something that quite rightly LJ takes very seriously.

That said arguing that we shouldn't be where we are because of statics is a contradiction or mumbo jumbo as I would cal it.

No one is arguing that we should not be where we are. 

The graphic and the stats that underlie it demonstrate that our goalscorers are scoring a number of goals that, on average, they would not normally score.  Therefore we are currently in a better place than you would reasonably expect us to be if, all other things being equal, we had scored only the goals you could reasonably expect us to score based upon the chances we have created.

It also demonstrates that we should not be surprised if those individuals' scoring rate - and therefore perhaps our overall form - dips a little in the future.

But, if all you see is "mumbo-jumbo", witchcraft and wizardry then so be it.

[Robbored]

6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The graphic and the stats that underlie it demonstrate that our goalscorers are scoring a number of goals that, on average, they would not normally score.  Therefore we are currently in a better place than you would reasonably expect us to be if, all other things being equal, we had scored only the goals you could reasonably expect us to score based upon the chances we have created.

Essentially then we are scoring goals that is above the average for non regular goalscorers?  

I didn't even know that there is an average for that type of stat.......

[RedBrizzleRobin]

Problem I find with that graph:

1. His stats are based on him playing in midfield prior to this season, players are expected (exceptions excluded) to score less in that position. Its difficult to compare stats from previous seasons to this one as he's playing a whole new position and in a position that should yield more chances to socre , I don't think you can really draw any conclusions off of it to be honest.

2. Are the players scoring more because they have improved from last season? Young players are expected to. Is it because we are creating better quality chances/better service to players that its become easier to score? Our play and I think, the quality of service have improved this season which is most likely the biggest contributing factory to some players improved scoring.

Personal opinion is its more likely that if our general play and quality of service deteriorate, it will have a far bigger impact than some players just having a purple patch.

[Son of Fred]

6 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

Well, Bob, we are scoring more goals than would be expected from a team based on the chances we are creating and how often those types of chances are scored.

So, as we are scoring more often than would be expected, our results are skewed as a result.

By the results getting skewed, our points total is off from what would be expected.

As a result of our points tally being higher than it "should" be, we are in a higher position.

It's worse than that Jim-this means we're clinical..

[Guest]

Enjoy it while you can.

[bpexile]

11 hours ago, BigTone said:

Correct me if I am wrong but isn'the point of the game to score goals? 

Spot on Tone, I think what JamesBCFC has forgotten is these words from a famous person.

"This is a very good question and topicold. I would say that if the forward line have a symmetrical teamworkers and that they can from the first passit of the ball... take in mind the measured beat of a one, two, throo or fido... so that the ball can falollop out to the wingers and a very fine trittly how in a run and drop-kick and carry one and shooting in the goal if they can get by without an offsiger which is known on the ref and don't throw the bottload because he's only doing his best. But, er, it'll be hard on their halfbackers because I don't think they'll get a chance to do a falolloper shooty on account of the front line with their deep joy of, shall we say, an express in their enthusiasm to the first who to clop falollop in the goalmouth. Oh yes. Anyway it's a very good question, sir. It's not much about music excepting that half-time in the band falolloped huffalo-dowd."

Now if we can stick to this theory we'll blitz em 

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, bpexile said:

Spot on Tone, I think what JamesBCFC has forgotten is these words from a famous person.

"This is a very good question and topicold. I would say that if the forward line have a symmetrical teamworkers and that they can from the first passit of the ball... take in mind the measured beat of a one, two, throo or fido... so that the ball can falollop out to the wingers and a very fine trittly how in a run and drop-kick and carry one and shooting in the goal if they can get by without an offsiger which is known on the ref and don't throw the bottload because he's only doing his best. But, er, it'll be hard on their halfbackers because I don't think they'll get a chance to do a falolloper shooty on account of the front line with their deep joy of, shall we say, an express in their enthusiasm to the first who to clop falollop in the goalmouth. Oh yes. Anyway it's a very good question, sir. It's not much about music excepting that half-time in the band falolloped huffalo-dowd."

Now if we can stick to this theory we'll blitz em 

Now I understand .

 

[Major Isewater]

Perhaps the thread title is a bit of a red herring , so far this season , according to the stats , we've be clinical and effective.

In the following matches perhaps we'll be less clinical but make more chances and score more goals so no reason why ' the goals should dry up ' .

Scaremongering for beginners.