The Fish

Passing % for the 4 defenders (Burn, Botman, Schar and Tripps) Wonder if Joelinton's absence had anything to do with that pretty significant drop?

How much are they asking for? (cba to read the article)

V.Likely %= Percentage of their squad that is very likely going to the World Cup. Possibly %= Percentage of their squad that could possibly go to the World Cup in total.

I'd still like us to sign Maddison because he can play centrally and out on the right. The priority for me is the base of the midfield three though. I want Bruno closer to the business end of the pitch. It's not sexy, but someone in the Tiote mould would be great.

Yeah, I called that wrong. Have to wonder though, if Howe has managed this with Miggy, what could he do with the likes of Pedro, Diaby or Maddison?

Not yet. I see Mastodon is getting spoken about a lot, but it's not immediately obvious how best to use it. Someone will find an alternative soon enough and twitter will be left to the old, and stupid. Just like Facebook.

Someone against Psychology students getting financial support?

To be a fly on the wall when the ultimate bullshitter meets the ultimate pisstaker.

Triplets? Wow! Congratulations!!

Mike Ashley makes stadium move with Sunderland's Championship rivals set to get new landlord | Sunderland Echo The Unlikeable Force meets the Intolerable Object.

More importantly, what are you doing in a thread about stats?!

Woken up on the bench in my mam and dad's garden (Mother Watson actually brought me out a bacon sandwich to wake me up with, the legend). Woken up in hospital a few times. Woke up on the beach near my house a couple of times too. Those were weird because no matter how I got home, the beach was never on the way to the house. Can only imagine I thought "bit too pissed to go home, the North Sea air should sober me up quick sharp" then promptly blacked out.

GA/90= Actual Goals against per 90 xGA/90= Chances against per 90 +/- 90 = difference between Expected and Chances against PSxG/90 = Effectively the average quality of the shot, per 90 GA v PSxG = Difference between Actual Goals against and Quality of the shot. 6 season prior to this one Pickford averaged So on average he concedes 1.4 goals a game, very similar but perhaps a tiny bit worse than you'd expect given the quality of chance. The quality of the shots he faces are about on par with the standard of chances (so he's not facing a stack of dribbled efforts when the attacker is in a good position). This season Everton are conceding the highest number of chances per game, from the past 7 seasons. The quality of shots he's facing haven't changed, and yet he's conceding the fewest amount of goals per 90. Purple patch.

Nice use of stats there. Glad to see you coming around. I can, not right now, but I definitely can.

Who is saying it's about predicting accurately? Stats show what's happened and suggest from that, what is likely to happen. That's it. Stats would show that the sun has risen every day for the last 4.5bn years, based off that, it's pretty likely it'll come up tomorrow. If that was it's only benefit, explain to me why multi million pound sports clubs around the world, in various disciplines, pump so much money into it? Not just scouting, but training, physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and all that.

Hey, it's one of those rare occasions where I've actually got work to do. (beginning of the month and I have to update some of the triggers on my automated scripts ) xG for Miggy was decent in his first 2 seasons, around 0.2 per 90, or a goal every 5 games. This season's small sample size has him doubling his xG, but you'd expect him to revert to the mean. At the minute, given the quality of chances he's had, he's scored 2 more goals than you'd expect. He's 4th in the league for outperforming expectations. Haaland, Maddison and Trossard ahead of him, however each of them have consistently out performed their xG, Miggy hasn't. So you'd expect him to fall back to his average a bit. This is a purple patch, not a sign that he's going to improve. End of the day, the eye test is great and all, but it's subjective. I've stood in the ground while people bitch and moan and call Saint Maximin worse than shit, when in fact he's fucking run the show. Heard people rave about Jacob Murphy, when the lads did nowt. Facts don't care about your feelings.

Not just chances that end up in a goal, but yeah, lots of criteria, including but not limited to; distance from goal, angle, body part, how the chance comes about (cross/pass/dribble/rebound), where the goal keeper is, where the defenders are and so on. Collect all of those data points from 1,000s of chances in 1,000s of matches in various competitions. It ignores subjective opinions of ability because keeping things level means that a player that consistently outperforms his xG has his superiority reflected in his goals vs expected goals, and someone who consistently underperforms the xG has his inferiority reflected.

It's thinking like this that saw Middlesbrough sign Aphonso Alves and Newcastle fans call Joelinton lazy. Enjoy the darkness, or join us in the light.

Stats can also reject a narrative. e.g. 'Joelinton is lazy'. His stats proved otherwise. I guess in that instance they're supporting an alternative narrative. They're more objective than the eye test though. Like, people are saying Everton have a good defence because they're not conceding a lot of goals. But stats show that they're giving up a good number of good chances, only Fulham, Forest and Bournemouth are doing worse in that (high xGA). Pickford's post shot xG is high, that means he's saving more shots than you'd expect a 'keeper to save. Only Bournemouth are allowing more attempted crosses, and only Man Utd's 'keeper is claiming fewer than Pickford. Everton have allowed the most shots in the league (214), and the 5th highest Shots on target (Fulham Forest and Bournemouth allow more). The average distance from goal that a shot is taken is 16yds. Excluding Penalties, they are 9 goals better off than you'd expect them to concede, we're behind them in second place with 2.7 fewer goals than expected. Only 3 teams press less than they do as well. So, stats show that they're not fundamentally not good defensively, and are hugely reliant on their goal keeper. He gets injured or loses form/confidence and you'd expect them to start shipping goals.

Well, obviously you don't just look at one season, but in essence, yeah a season's worth of performance metrics is a decent indication. You'd have to watch every game of the player to apply the eye test rigorously and teams won't commit to that, they'll watch them for 3 or 4 matches. In those matches they'll be focussed more on the intangibles; how did he react to missing a chance, how did he behave when the team went behind, did he listen to instructions from the sidelines, how did he take being subbed off. The talent pool these days is huge and there's no way you can send scouts around the globe to watch a 17yr old Brazilian play 3 games then make a recommendation off the back of that. The risks are too large. Better to use the data resources to narrow the field, then send a scout to watch the shortlist. The stats and eye test will have influenced the intensive and specialised training he undertook to improve his game. They'll use specialises sensors in training to guide changes to his stance, his gait, his kicking motion to get the optimal return from his play.

You can use data to see when a player has underlying performances that are perhaps an indicator that he can kick on, yeah. e.g. there's a striker in a lower league, he's banging goals in for fun 22 for the season already, the scout sees him bag a brace and dominate the defenders. But when you look at his underlying metrics for the season, he's way below his xG and his post-shot xG is even worse, his pass % is poor etc. The stats don't ignore the opposition, the stats average out the opposition. It doesn't matter if Pascal Fancypants is playing in the J-League or Serie A, if he consistently outperforms his xG, consistently completes a high number of passes, and all the metrics that aren't publicly available look good, then yeah clubs can use data to identify players with potential to play at a higher level than they currently are. Why would the elite clubs spend so much on recruitment analysis and data teams if it couldn't?

I'm sure you've predicted big tings for flops, and I'm sure you've also called players worse than shit and been proven wrong. Stats are sweet sweet objectivity baby.