For the more stats based connoisseur's amongst us... An interesting blog article (by a Wolves fan from the betting industry) discussing some of the PL striker's expected goals from their shots (excluding penalties) last season, and what that likely means when looking forward to next season.... http://gemsandrhinestones.com
Great little report that. It does make Pelle look a bit off colour to put it politely but it doesnt account for how close they were to going in. So if he's under the expected target by 9 goals but hits the woodwork 12 times then he's come very close to reaching the expected mean. I like the positive conclusion that all players revert closer to expected levels which would put Pelle closer to 20 goals next season rather than 10. Stats are just stats tho.
I stopped thinking altogether about a paragraph and a half into the article. I've just come round. What happened....?
Each to their own. Some people know everything, others read and/or listen and learn. In summary: *It basically says is that with the chances Pelle had he should have scored 21 goals last year. *The fact that he only scored 12 is most likely in part down to 'chance' or 'luck' (think how many times he hit the woodwork), and given the exact same shooting opportunities next season you would expect him to score closer to the 21 than the 12 he got this season. *Of course, part of the reason may also be down to him being a poorer than average PL striker, but over only one season (small sample size of shots, small margins of success/failure) luck more often than not can be a major factor. Most football fans and/or bettors do not accurately understand this. Nice to see that given the choice of thinking 'that's not for me' and just moving on, or criticising, this forum has lived up to it's usual high standards (Clem/FLT/Chilco - Outstanding contribution to this thread gents)!
Oh dear mate, got a bit sensitive because we didn't really appreciate the article? Settle down, people don't have to like it and if you post up on a forum, you have to take the good with the bad. People are entitled to say it's great and entitled to say it's not. Three people were clearly impressed with it, so make your glass half full and look and focus on that rather than the three who didn't. Just another thought Latvian, if you don't think this forum has the high standards you desire, why bother posting a thread? Surely you'd have known what to expect of the standard around here.
I've got pretty thick skin FLT. I was just pointing out that your contribution was essentially balls and for no great purpose. Of course I too am entitled to post this as after all I'm entitled to my opinion also.
But all you've done is highlight the negative. You'll always get balls on a football forum and you're probably better off ignoring that than whining about it. Why do you think the forum has such a poor standard? Sounds a little bitter to me just because a couple of people commented negatively.
I just think that in general people should comment with posts that at least have some form of either thought or decorum (be it any of positive, a reasoned rebuttal, constructive criticism). Call me old school. Anyway, I'm not someone to take anything personally, so you're entitled to whatever views you have.
Well it does seem you've taken this personally as it was your thread and you've had a moan at a few of us. I think the thoughts were pretty clear to be honest. Stats only tell you so much.
Yes, your thoughts were made clear in your post. My thoughts too were made clear around (in my view) the pointlessness of 3 posts (one of which was yours). There's nothing wrong with that though as it's a forum right? Doesn't mean I've read or thought anything further into it. We'll both continue stating our respective points of view on this topic or many other Saints related issues sometimes agreeing, sometimes not.
The analyses contained in that link is probably only of real interest to the gamblers among us. It addresses the perplexing theoretical issue of how odds compilers should quantify chance. What is the nature of luck, how significant is it, and how can it be measured mathematically? Kevin Pullein writes a regular football column in the Racing Post full of statistical analyses, probability theory and philosophy that would make very dry reading for most fans of the beautiful game. However, Pullein's own betting stats prove (ha!) that he is a genius. In other words, this Wolves guy may be on to something. Pelle's goal stats may be misleading and further data (at least another season's worth) may be needed to assess his true value as a goalscorer. Or you could just trust what your eyes tell you. Gamblers like to reduce everything to numbers, as that in the final analyses is how you get an edge over the bookies. For instance, races horses are given a numerical value or rating based on their historical performance. It seems a bit arbitrary to the uninitiated but history shows that it is effective and surprisingly accurate. It would be interesting to see if a similar methodology could be used to rate the abilities of football players, and strikers would be the obvious place to start. Of course, when I say it would be interesting, I mean it would be interesting to some of us.
Just addressing Latvians post a little - the thing with a forum and the way social media is (particularly Twitter actually), is that it's a little bit like being in a virtual pub. You might say something to your mates which you think is fascinating and one of them would reply "nah, that's balls" to which another would then reply "yeah, with you on that, what a load of cobblers" whereas a third might say "no, hold on, that's quite interesting". It's just human interaction and this forum has a conversational style, so I wouldn't get worked up by that. Mind you, I could just be talking balls myself....
My apologies, Latviandream, for trying to go with the humour rather than discussing the article. Having done a fair bit of statistical analysis in my 38 years in a clinical laboratory my first impression was that any data sets with an R2 as low as the ones they were quoting meant there was practically no correlation at all, other than by chance. I did try and find something meaningful in the article but the best thing there was the conclusion that there is no correlation between a striker's performance one season and the next. Surely that can't be true can it? Strikers don't become useless over the summer unless something else changes, e.g. Sturridge losing Suarez as a partner. And please listen to LTL's advice and not take adverse comments so personally, we're only having fun!
This is what I was trying to say! I didn't mean to disrespect your thread Latvian, I just think football is simpler than stats. Maybe Pelle was unlucky not to score 20 plus goals this season, but there's a reason he cost the price he was, and it's the same reason he plays for Saints and not Chelsea.
