• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Energetically wasteful and avoiding the issue - more explanation required I think.
Have loads of shots but can't shoot straight for toffees or shoot from too far out when there's no chance of scoring as all the defenders have got back?

Any stats on corners from deflected or saved shots?

Don't let the opposition get many shots in - but when they do it usually goes in ?
 
Energetically wasteful and avoiding the issue - more explanation required I think.
Have loads of shots but can't shoot straight for toffees or shoot from too far out when there's no chance of scoring as all the defenders have got back?

Any stats on corners from deflected or saved shots?

Don't let the opposition get many shots in - but when they do it usually goes in ?

https://experimental361.com/explanations/explanations-scatters/
 
These are all well and good, but it's the usual exact science applied to an non-exact science scenario.

For example, those graphs suggest Rotherham are a constant threat, quiet at the back, but are currently bottom of the table on current form!
 
These are all well and good, but it's the usual exact science applied to an non-exact science scenario.

For example, those graphs suggest Rotherham are a constant threat, quiet at the back, but are currently bottom of the table on current form!

Current forms mean little when a season is 46 games long.
 
Exactly, as do any stats produced after 19 or so games about attacking/defending threats and the like.

It's like the kilometers covered and passes completed nonsense. It's not how much, it's how effective it is.

Don't have a problem if people feel they serve a purpose. Personally, I don't think they do.
 
Had a look at those stats 'Napster', but it simply shows that, if you score more goals and let less in, you finish higher up the league.
 
Had a look at those stats 'Napster', but it simply shows that, if you score more goals and let less in, you finish higher up the league.

I actually was pointing out that his predictions based on his ratings have shown that the correlation over a season works out. I know you don't like stats but imo "AndyT", this is a good and useful analytical tool and shows that actually we're doing better than our league position shows currently.
 
OK, makes sense.

I'm not anti-stats, as such, they do prove a point, but as in cricket, for example, smaller stats over shorter periods don't give a true reflection.

For example, over 46 games, the teams who finish at the top generally score more and concede less. Like with cricket, the best batsmen have the best batting averages over an extended period.

Sample stats are less meaningful, though and whilst might be slight pointers, they are not to be taken overly seriously. Our home record is good, but we haven't played hardly any top sides at home yet, is another example.
 
Last edited:
I actually was pointing out that his predictions based on his ratings have shown that the correlation over a season works out. I know you don't like stats but imo "AndyT", this is a good and useful analytical tool and shows that actually we're doing better than our league position shows currently.


Nonsense. We are doing exactly how well our League position shows. No better, no worse. That's what League positions do, they rank teams in order of how well they're doing.

If League positions are potentially misleading it can be only for one of two reasons - games in hand or having played all the best/worst teams and few of the worst/best. Regards the latter option we're past that stage.

Basing anything on the number of shots, however wayward, both taken and allowed is ludicrous.
 
Nonsense. We are doing exactly how well our League position shows. No better, no worse. That's what League positions do, they rank teams in order of how well they're doing.

If League positions are potentially misleading it can be only for one of two reasons - games in hand or having played all the best/worst teams and few of the worst/best. Regards the latter option we're past that stage.

Basing anything on the number of shots, however wayward, both taken and allowed is ludicrous.

We haven't finished the season yet. I would take a bet that we will finish higher than our current position based on the stats in the first post.
 
If League positions are potentially misleading it can be only for one of two reasons - games in hand or having played all the best/worst teams and few of the worst/best. Regards the latter option we're past that stage.

Or that football is a game with a higher scoring currency than most other sports, so the league table can be misleading as the impact of individual game events is much higher than in (say) basketball or rugby league.

Stats like those that Napster has posted are the sort of things that oddsmakers and professional bettors look at when trying to analyse the chances of a team in any given game.

It's why - for example - Shrewsbury have invariably been a bigger price to win L1 this season than their results may have suggested. They did very well, but the stats suggested they were overperforming, getting little more luck than usual, and so on.
 
Last edited:
The good thing the stats are proving is that we are playing better than our points suggest, which in no way I will use on other threads to undermine those that think we are shockingly bad, rubbish and will be relegated and the like! :winking:
 
U r so right Mick ,naughty step 4 u Napster ,if u score more goals than the opo u win ,simple .:smile::smile:
 
Just so that it is clear and you all know where I stand I would like to say that I am in favour of both attacking and defending. :thumbsup:
 
Stats ,mmmmmmmmmm tell that to some of the proffessional dart players who average close to 100 a set in tournaments and lose, think they might tell you what they think about stats lol, rather win '
 
Some figures are useful but can be challenged by subjective interpretation. When it comes to attacking and defending, I think we are toothless up front and have no pace in our CB's. For me that's not a good combination.

My main concern is the attacking. As a squad we have scored way too few goals. Look at the starting line up against Oxford.

Jason Demetriou 400 games 23 goals.

Michael Turner 380 " 23 "

Anton Ferdinand 330 " 7 "

Michael Timlin 312 " 19 "

Michael Kightly 320 " 65 "

Josh Wright 280 " 19 "

Stephen McLaughlin 200 " 25 "

Ryan Leonard 235 " 18 "

MAF 500 " 99 "

Simon Cox 350 " 98 "

Coxy is our go to guy for a goal. The figures do not show how many assists the players do but they are academic. There is no point of having a team full off assist specialists, which we haven't anyway, if no one can bury the ball.

Collectively, in over 3,300 games, they average a goal in every 8+ matches.
 
Stats ,mmmmmmmmmm tell that to some of the proffessional dart players who average close to 100 a set in tournaments and lose, think they might tell you what they think about stats lol, rather win '

The stats might tell that dart player where he is going wrong though, and where to focus his efforts in training.
 
Back
Top