• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Stats Thread

Micheal Jones and Mike Jones are listed as separate officials but in actual fact they are the same person.... Mike Jones' stats show him as being biased against English players, whereas when he referees as Michael Jones he is suddenly biased the other way. Perhaps he takes on a whole new persona when he is called Mike?

It is akin to the way that I take on a whole new persona at the weekends when I change from John into Jane.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Micheal Jones and Mike Jones are listed as separate officials but in actual fact they are the same person.... Mike Jones' stats show him as being biased against English players, whereas when he referees as Michael Jones he is suddenly biased the other way. Perhaps he takes on a whole new persona when he is called Mike?

It is akin to the way that I take on a whole new persona at the weekends when I change from John into Jane.
Click to expand...
That's covered in the comments at the bottom - adding the two together is obviously the correct solution, so the latter bias is the correct one.
 
glorygloryeze said:
Anybody got any stats on our chance conversion rate over the last 6 years or so?
We've scored the second highest number of goals but i just get the impression that we are less efficient in terms of taking our chances when compared to previous seasons...
Click to expand...
Fwiw... Using WhoScored' figures dating back to 09/10 season... Obviously not taking into consideration ExpG et al...

2016: Leicester 13.5% v Spurs 10.6%
2015: Chelsea 12.8% v Spurs 10.6%
2014: Emirates Marketing Project 14.4% v Spurs 8.5%
2013: Man Utd 14.3% v Spurs 9.1%
2012: Emirates Marketing Project 12.3% v Spurs 9.3%
2011: Man Utd 12.1% v Spurs 8.1%
2010: Chelsea 12.0% v Spurs 9.8%
 
SteveAWOL said:
Fwiw... Using WhoScored' figures dating back to 09/10 season... Obviously not taking into consideration ExpG et al...

2016: Leicester 13.5% v Spurs 10.6%
2015: Chelsea 12.8% v Spurs 10.6%
2014: Emirates Marketing Project 14.4% v Spurs 8.5%
2013: Man Utd 14.3% v Spurs 9.1%
2012: Emirates Marketing Project 12.3% v Spurs 9.3%
2011: Man Utd 12.1% v Spurs 8.1%
2010: Chelsea 12.0% v Spurs 9.8%
Click to expand...
Intriguing.

Begs all kinds of questions around why our conversion rate remains so relatively low even in a good season. Something to do with our attacking culture / open style of play allied to the type of players we bring in? Thing is it's despite very different managers and different players over the period.
 
Spur of the moment said:
Intriguing.

Begs all kinds of questions around why our conversion rate remains so relatively low even in a good season. Something to do with our attacking culture / open style of play allied to the type of players we bring in? Thing is it's despite very different managers and different players over the period.
Click to expand...
Or does it just show that in order to be Champions you need to be a bit "lucky" with your conversion ratio?!?
 
scaramanga said:
Care to explain then, when most referees are able to be consistent between nationalities to a small deviation, one or two of them are massively outside that?
Click to expand...

19 refs listed 10 show a bias against English players 9 in favour, taking just refs with a +1/-1 bias it's 5 against 4 in favour. I'm not sure what the argument is.
 
camspur said:
19 refs listed 10 show a bias against English players 9 in favour, taking just refs with a +1/-1 bias it's 5 against 4 in favour. I'm not sure what the argument is.
Click to expand...
The argument is that most refs are able to stay within a pretty tight margin of no significant bias. A handful of others are well outside that - it's pretty significant.

The one referee showing a bias against black players (3 SDs!) is even more concerning.
 
scaramanga said:
The argument is that most refs are able to stay within a pretty tight margin of no significant bias. A handful of others are well outside that - it's pretty significant.

The one referee showing a bias against black players (3 SDs!) is even more concerning.
Click to expand...

I don't see any problem at all.
Having refereed many games I gave fouls as I saw them, I didn't go "oooh that player is black/white/english/martian I can't give the foul" and then make my decision, so i'm pretty sure the Premier League referees don't.
 
camspur said:
I don't see any problem at all.
Having refereed many games I gave fouls as I saw them, I didn't go "oooh that player is black/white/english/martian I can't give the foul" and then make my decision, so i'm pretty sure the Premier League referees don't.
Click to expand...
As I said, I'm sure nobody is overtly biased in their decision making.

The data show a fairly large bias from some refs though - and there's enough of it to be pretty solid.
 
Spur of the moment said:
Intriguing.

Begs all kinds of questions around why our conversion rate remains so relatively low even in a good season. Something to do with our attacking culture / open style of play allied to the type of players we bring in? Thing is it's despite very different managers and different players over the period.
Click to expand...
The correct stat to look at is xG, which factors in quality of chances. If a team has higher quality chances, their conversion rate will be higher. The data that @SteveAWOL presented tells me that we either suck at converting, or that our conversion rate is fine, but we suck at creating high quality chances. Which is why xG is the more relevant stat.
 
Bullet said:
Huh? You're surprised that our goal conversion rate is lower than the champions's's each year? Surely that is pretty normal.
Click to expand...
Was saying it's stretching things to suggest that teams become champions because they happen to get lucky with their conversion rate.

Could probably have expressed it better though.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
alekaras said:
The correct stat to look at is xG, which factors in quality of chances. If a team has higher quality chances, their conversion rate will be higher. The data that @SteveAWOL presented tells me that we either suck at converting, or that our conversion rate is fine, but we suck at creating high quality chances. Which is why xG is the more relevant stat.
Click to expand...
We take a lot of long shots. We're actually better than most at converting them, but they're low value shots.
 
Spur of the moment said:
Intriguing.

Begs all kinds of questions around why our conversion rate remains so relatively low even in a good season. Something to do with our attacking culture / open style of play allied to the type of players we bring in? Thing is it's despite very different managers and different players over the period.

Finney Is Back said:
Or does it just show that in order to be Champions you need to be a bit "lucky" with your conversion ratio?!?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

FWIW, shot conv rates for the usual suspects going back to 2009/10 season...



alekaras said:
The correct stat to look at is xG, which factors in quality of chances. If a team has higher quality chances, their conversion rate will be higher. The data that @SteveAWOL presented tells me that we either suck at converting, or that our conversion rate is fine, but we suck at creating high quality chances. Which is why xG is the more relevant stat.
Click to expand...

Could only find data going back to 2010/11...

 
Last edited:
SteveAWOL said:
FWIW, shot conv rates for the usual suspects going back to 2009/10 season...





Could only find data going back to 2010/11...

Click to expand...
That is much more relevant. Shows that last year we were tops in outperforming our xG. Puts the shot conversion table you posted in perspective.
 
I think the graph certainly shows one thing: To win the title you need the best shot conversion rate in the division….

This year Leicester are going to win the league with the highest shot conversion rate
In 2015 Chelsea won the league with the highest shot conversion rate
In 2014 Emirates Marketing Project won the league with Liverpool pushing them incredibly close – both had by far the highest shot conversion rates
In 2013 Man Utd won the league with by far the highest shot conversion rate
In 2012 it was Emirates Marketing Project who had the second highest rate, pipping Man Utd on the final day (Man Utd had the highest rate)
2011 it was Man Utd, who had the highest rate and won the league.

All of these teams have a conversion rate higher than 12% A rate that it seems we haven’t achieved in those same 7 years.

You have to go back to 2010 to find PL winners from a team with a conversion rate of less than 12% Even then Chelsea had the second best conversion rate at around 11.9% The real anomaly here though was that Emirates Marketing Project had a conversion rate hugely higher than anybody else but still didn’t win the league.

While it’s clear that having better attacking players is likely to result in better shot conversion rates I think there is also a large element of luck involved. I say this because of the fluctuations in shot conversion rates the same teams seem to have year on year.

It seems to me that if you keep putting yourself up there then one year you’re likely to be the luckiest in front of goal of the contenders and you’ll win the league.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I think the graph certainly shows one thing: To win the title you need the best shot conversion rate in the division….

This year Leicester are going to win the league with the highest shot conversion rate
In 2015 Chelsea won the league with the highest shot conversion rate
In 2014 Emirates Marketing Project won the league with Liverpool pushing them incredibly close – both had by far the highest shot conversion rates
In 2013 Man Utd won the league with by far the highest shot conversion rate
In 2012 it was Emirates Marketing Project who had the second highest rate, pipping Man Utd on the final day (Man Utd had the highest rate)
2011 it was Man Utd, who had the highest rate and won the league.

All of these teams have a conversion rate higher than 12% A rate that it seems we haven’t achieved in those same 7 years.

You have to go back to 2010 to find PL winners from a team with a conversion rate of less than 12% Even then Chelsea had the second best conversion rate at around 11.9% The real anomaly here though was that Emirates Marketing Project had a conversion rate hugely higher than anybody else but still didn’t win the league.

While it’s clear that having better attacking players is likely to result in better shot conversion rates I think there is also a large element of luck involved. I say this because of the fluctuations in shot conversion rates the same teams seem to have year on year.

It seems to me that if you keep putting yourself up there then one year you’re likely to be the luckiest in front of goal of the contenders and you’ll win the league.
Click to expand...
Like Scara said earlier, we tend to attempt a lot more long range shots than the other top sides. Which would go some way towards explaining our relatively low conversion rates.

As even Bale is going to convert a lower % of shots from outside the 18 yard box than the likes of Aguero / van Persie / Drogba / Costa / Vardy will from inside the penalty area.

I dunno where to find the ExpG maps for each side going back over the past few seasons but just looking at the Shot Zones data from WhoScored shows that the 6 teams winning the title between 2010-15 averaged 39.3% of their shot attempts from outside the area. Whilst Spurs are up at 50.5%...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back