Another one for the statto`s

[Filo]

http://experimental361.com/2012/11/11/attacking-and-defensive-effectiveness-11th-november-2012/



Makes interesting reading

[Filo]

And more graphs, this time Total Shot Ratio`s

http://experimental361.com/2012/11/11/a-quick-look-at-total-shots-ratio/

[BillyStubbsTears]

After some decidedly mixed yet encouraging results while using my data for predictive purposes,

Exactly what you would expect if there was a general trend between TSR and clubs' success, but with a large scatter in the results. That is positive, but weak correlation. (Dutch will probably fill us in if my terminology is up the creek.)

Which is exactly what the situation is.

[mjdgreg]

What I like about it is that it’s such a simple measure: the ratio of shots that a team has compared to the opposition, with higher values suggesting a greater amount of time in control of the ball. It’s not a perfect predictor by any means: by definition it ignores shooting efficiency (i.e. the vertical axis on my effectiveness graphs), which is obviously a simplification. The quality of chances created remains important, and some teams do very well with a counter-attacking style while others create plenty of chances but lack a clinical finisher, but analysis shows it to be surprisingly reliable and it’s a much quicker way of comparing teams.

Say no more.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

One day, you'll stop just taking what people say at face value  (when they say things that you like) and actually dig into the data yourself. It's not hard.

Your man says that the TSR is "surprisingly reliable". He quotes another statto who says that there is a strong link between TSR and total points won by PREMIERSHIP teams. This person claims that this demonstrates that teams who dominate possession and have more shots than their opponents are more successful than ones that don't. In the PREMIERSHIP

Fine. What about in Division 3, which is where we were last time I looked?



Once again, we see no significant correlation whatsoever, beyond a vague (to the point of non-existent) trend in the right direction with huge spread either side. Once again, we conclude that AT THIS LEVEL OF FOOTBALL, there is no meaningful connection between domination of possession, shots or quality of pizza pods on sale in the bars and success of the team on the pitch.

Doubtless we'll have this discussion all over again in a couple of months time...

[Sheepskin Stu]

^^^^
f**king dull Kitsons

[mjdgreg]

f***ing dull c***s

May I say what a lovely way with words you have. Your parents must be very proud of the cultured refined daughter they've brought into the world.

Anyway, I've got a much simpler easy to follow stat that is very accurate. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. It's goal difference! The top 11 teams have a positive goal difference and all the others below have a negative one. The team at the top of the league has the best goal difference and the team at the bottom has the worst. Sorted.

[BillyStubbsTears]

f**king 'ell Mick. I think you're on to something here.

Let me think what it means. Teams that regularly score more than their opponents tend to do well, and those that don't tend to do badly.

Can't see the flaw in the logic this time me old mucker.