An analytical assessment of league one this season


Status
Not open for further replies.
Sunderland's Results this Season based on xG:

Sunderland 1 - 2 Charlton (L)
Luton 1 - 1 Sunderland (D)
Sunderland 3 - 1 Scunthorpe (W)
Gillingham 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Wimbledon 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Sunderland 1 - 1 Oxford (D)
Sunderland 2 - 2 Fleetwood (D)
Burton 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Sunderland 2 - 1 Rochdale (W)
Coventry 1 - 2 Sunderland (W)
Bradford 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Sunderland 2 - 1 Peterborough (W)
Shrewsbury 2 - 0 Sunderland (L)
Doncaster 2 - 2 Sunderland (D)
Sunderland 1 - 2 Southend (L)
Plymouth 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)

W: 4 D: 4 L: 8 F: 22 A: 26 GD: -4 Pts: 16
(We'd be just inside the relegation zone)

The model got the score correct 3 times and the result correct a further 3 times. In all, the model has a 28% accuracy after 16 games.

Is it a better or worse predictor than just running the games through Champ Manager by the way?
This was my point to the author. Champ's game engine is based on individual player ability (albeit, based on the subject opinion of the game's scouts and researchers).

The xG model assumes that a player has a certain percentage chance of scoring a goal for any given opportunity. This is based on retrospective goal data gleaned form all levels of football. So if a player goes 1-on-1 with the keeper, the model predicts the same likelihood of a goal, whether it's Sergio Aguero, or Gammy-Leg Bob playing for the Dog 'n Duck. The rationale is that the defence and goalkeeper are appropriately skilled for the ability of the striker. So Sergio is facing Jordan Pickford, which Bob is facing One-eyed Pete from the King's Arms, therefore there's parity in the Att. v Def. ability, and the percentage chance of scoring is the same. Now obviously, if the King's Arms face Man City, the model will go to ratshit, because you're not dealing with parity of ability, and the likelihood of Aguero knocking one passed One-eyed Pete is considerably higher than for Bob.

So if Sunderland have notably better players, than League One average, it knacks the model up because you don't have parity of ability. The author dismissed this quite casually, suggesting (in his limited experience) he'd seen nothing to suggest that Sunderland have demonstrably better players than the rest of the league. So he's backing the model, and looking for other reasons to write-off the wild discrepancy in actual performance. He's basically settled on "blind luck" as an explanation, which I think is what has rattled people.

But... Sunderland's matchday squad of 18 players on Saturday contained 8 full senior internationals and a further 4 players who've been capped internationally at youth level. Furthmore, Cattermole, Watmore, Oviedo and Love weren't in the squad, and all have international caps at either youth or senior level. No other team in League One can claim anything close to this calibre. Opposition fans constantly whinge about our "big budget" and parachute payments. Why? Because, in their view, it gives us disproportionate power to sign / retain the highest quality players.

There is SOMETHING in the stats which I think most Sunderland would agree with. We've yet to really dominate a game and give a team a proper good hiding. But when a model suggests we should have lost 2-1 at home to Southend, this is when the people on the ground watching the games can rightly scoff at the Excel-jockeys.
 
Sunderland's Results this Season based on xG:

Sunderland 1 - 2 Charlton (L)
Luton 1 - 1 Sunderland (D)
Sunderland 3 - 1 Scunthorpe (W)
Gillingham 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Wimbledon 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Sunderland 1 - 1 Oxford (D)
Sunderland 2 - 2 Fleetwood (D)
Burton 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Sunderland 2 - 1 Rochdale (W)
Coventry 1 - 2 Sunderland (W)
Bradford 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Sunderland 2 - 1 Peterborough (W)
Shrewsbury 2 - 0 Sunderland (L)
Doncaster 2 - 2 Sunderland (D)
Sunderland 1 - 2 Southend (L)
Plymouth 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)

W: 4 D: 4 L: 8 F: 22 A: 26 GD: -4 Pts: 16
(We'd be just inside the relegation zone)

The model got the score correct 3 times and the result correct a further 3 times. In all, the model has a 28% accuracy after 16 games.


This was my point to the author. Champ's game engine is based on individual player ability (albeit, based on the subject opinion of the game's scouts and researchers).

The xG model assumes that a player has a certain percentage chance of scoring a goal for any given opportunity. This is based on retrospective goal data gleaned form all levels of football. So if a player goes 1-on-1 with the keeper, the model predicts the same likelihood of a goal, whether it's Sergio Aguero, or Gammy-Leg Bob playing for the Dog 'n Duck. The rationale is that the defence and goalkeeper are appropriately skilled for the ability of the striker. So Sergio is facing Jordan Pickford, which Bob is facing One-eyed Pete from the King's Arms, therefore there's parity in the Att. v Def. ability, and the percentage chance of scoring is the same. Now obviously, if the King's Arms face Man City, the model will go to ratshit, because you're not dealing with parity of ability, and the likelihood of Aguero knocking one passed One-eyed Pete is considerably higher than for Bob.

So if Sunderland have notably better players, than League One average, it knacks the model up because you don't have parity of ability. The author dismissed this quite casually, suggesting (in his limited experience) he'd seen nothing to suggest that Sunderland have demonstrably better players than the rest of the league. So he's backing the model, and looking for other reasons to write-off the wild discrepancy in actual performance. He's basically settled on "blind luck" as an explanation, which I think is what has rattled people.

But... Sunderland's matchday squad of 18 players on Saturday contained 8 full senior internationals and a further 4 players who've been capped internationally at youth level. Furthmore, Cattermole, Watmore, Oviedo and Love weren't in the squad, and all have international caps at either youth or senior level. No other team in League One can claim anything close to this calibre. Opposition fans constantly whinge about our "big budget" and parachute payments. Why? Because, in their view, it gives us disproportionate power to sign / retain the highest quality players.

There is SOMETHING in the stats which I think most Sunderland would agree with. We've yet to really dominate a game and give a team a proper good hiding. But when a model suggests we should have lost 2-1 at home to Southend, this is when the people on the ground watching the games can rightly scoff at the Excel-jockeys.
Those results are really interesting. Just off the top of my head in the Gillingham game I remember two of our goals being tap ins basically on the line so how come we only have 1 expected goal? The Southend game is another weird one as for me we were totally in control all game and can't really remember them having better chances than us and certainly none as good as McGeady's or Honeyman's goals,

I agree with the rest of what you're saying that the quality of our players is the main reason for the discrepancy (McLaughlin saving those two one-on-ones and Maguire scoring two worldies would have screwed our stats). If you take into account our quality and add a '+1' to our goals scored or '-1' to our goals conceded and you'd likely get more accurate results.
 
Those results are really interesting. Just off the top of my head in the Gillingham game I remember two of our goals being tap ins basically on the line so how come we only have 1 expected goal?
The actual xG score was 1.5 v 1.2 In terms of the goals, you can see our second and third goals were 'unexpected' so contributed very little to our xG score. Chris Maguire's opener had a 40% chance of going in, while Maja's chance for the fourth was about 30% (I agree, that seems low). Max Power missed a chance from inside the box after 10 minutes, which was our best xG chance that didn't result in a goal. But basically, beyond that, we didn't create much, so xG shows us as being edged out overall. Gillingham basically had lots of little chances throughout the game, which all added up.
League 1 timelines, 21-22 Aug 2018

The Southend game is another weird one as for me we were totally in control all game and can't really remember them having better chances than us and certainly none as good as McGeady's or Honeyman's goals,
Our first two goals were 'unexpected', and between them, we created absolutely nowt. Meanwhile, xG gave their two chances on 35 minutes and another two on 45 minutes as being a relatively high chance of scoring. It also suggests they should have put away the chance on 63 minutes. Basically, unlike Gillingham (in which they had loads of little chances), xG suggests Southend spurned 2 or 3 big chances.
League 1 timelines, 27 Oct 2018
 
Those results are really interesting. Just off the top of my head in the Gillingham game I remember two of our goals being tap ins basically on the line so how come we only have 1 expected goal?
Watching the goals from that game on youtube and comparing it to the xG timeline is probably a good explanation of how it works. Timeline is here League 1 timelines, 21-22 Aug 2018

The opening goals for each team were headers around the six yard box, and are given a rating of 0.3 (ie 30% of the time it's a goal). The next two Sunderland goals were shots from longer range and given a rating of a out 0.1 (10% chance). The last goal was Maja swivelling on the edge of the six yard box, and again had a 0.3 rating. Gillingham had another chance in the six yard box - in real life, it was a much harder chance (ball crossed in at speed) but was given the same 0.3 rating. Gillingham had more chances, according to the timeline, but they were all low quality, so seems to be desperation shots from around the edge of the box.

EDIT: beaten to it :lol:
 
What a load of bollocks. Take a look at the table. Bloody hell.

It appeared on Sky last season and seems to be coming a thing.
... But remains a crock of shit. For f+ucks sake, how about thinking for ourselves?

Sunderland's Results this Season based on xG:

Sunderland 1 - 2 Charlton (L)
Luton 1 - 1 Sunderland (D)
Sunderland 3 - 1 Scunthorpe (W)
Gillingham 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Wimbledon 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Sunderland 1 - 1 Oxford (D)
Sunderland 2 - 2 Fleetwood (D)
Burton 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Sunderland 2 - 1 Rochdale (W)
Coventry 1 - 2 Sunderland (W)
Bradford 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)
Sunderland 2 - 1 Peterborough (W)
Shrewsbury 2 - 0 Sunderland (L)
Doncaster 2 - 2 Sunderland (D)
Sunderland 1 - 2 Southend (L)
Plymouth 2 - 1 Sunderland (L)

W: 4 D: 4 L: 8 F: 22 A: 26 GD: -4 Pts: 16
(We'd be just inside the relegation zone)

The model got the score correct 3 times and the result correct a further 3 times. In all, the model has a 28% accuracy after 16 games.


This was my point to the author. Champ's game engine is based on individual player ability (albeit, based on the subject opinion of the game's scouts and researchers).

The xG model assumes that a player has a certain percentage chance of scoring a goal for any given opportunity. This is based on retrospective goal data gleaned form all levels of football. So if a player goes 1-on-1 with the keeper, the model predicts the same likelihood of a goal, whether it's Sergio Aguero, or Gammy-Leg Bob playing for the Dog 'n Duck. The rationale is that the defence and goalkeeper are appropriately skilled for the ability of the striker. So Sergio is facing Jordan Pickford, which Bob is facing One-eyed Pete from the King's Arms, therefore there's parity in the Att. v Def. ability, and the percentage chance of scoring is the same. Now obviously, if the King's Arms face Man City, the model will go to ratshit, because you're not dealing with parity of ability, and the likelihood of Aguero knocking one passed One-eyed Pete is considerably higher than for Bob.

So if Sunderland have notably better players, than League One average, it knacks the model up because you don't have parity of ability. The author dismissed this quite casually, suggesting (in his limited experience) he'd seen nothing to suggest that Sunderland have demonstrably better players than the rest of the league. So he's backing the model, and looking for other reasons to write-off the wild discrepancy in actual performance. He's basically settled on "blind luck" as an explanation, which I think is what has rattled people.

But... Sunderland's matchday squad of 18 players on Saturday contained 8 full senior internationals and a further 4 players who've been capped internationally at youth level. Furthmore, Cattermole, Watmore, Oviedo and Love weren't in the squad, and all have international caps at either youth or senior level. No other team in League One can claim anything close to this calibre. Opposition fans constantly whinge about our "big budget" and parachute payments. Why? Because, in their view, it gives us disproportionate power to sign / retain the highest quality players.

There is SOMETHING in the stats which I think most Sunderland would agree with. We've yet to really dominate a game and give a team a proper good hiding. But when a model suggests we should have lost 2-1 at home to Southend, this is when the people on the ground watching the games can rightly scoff at the Excel-jockeys.
Luckily for me and 30,000 and others, I am able to attend matches, enjoy the football and build my own opinions and expectations.
How many of the arseholes who build these ludicrous stats have ever seen even one Sunderland game?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In summary, we have better finishers and a better keeper than the rest of the league.
All of the midfield are contributing to the goals, too, which is a novel thing for us;)

What a load of bollocks. Take a look at the table. Bloody hell.


... But remains a crock of shit. For f+ucks sake, how about thinking for ourselves?


Luckily for me and 30,000 and others, I am able to attend matches, enjoy the football and build my own opinions and expectations.
How many of the arseholes who build these ludicrous stats have ever seen even one Sunderland game?
This, mate. Don't get to many games, jut make my own mind up about things.
 
Last edited:
What the stats do imply and I kind of agree with is Maja, Maguire and McLaughlin are very important to our future fortunes.....
 
This reminds me of the fiasco generated in the F.A. in the 80s when a certain 'Olympic coach' called Charles Hughes influenced the game's 'thinkers' with his statistical theories. POMO- positions of maximum opportunity- and most goals coming from moves with three passes or fewer etc.etc. It blighted the English game for a decade, I reckon, promoting speed over skill and technique.
This is slightly different because the analysis comes from the betting industry, but the lack of any definable measure of skill renders it useless in any context except analysis of millions of transactions. Certainly not for one season or one league, let alone one game. Maybe this whole enterprise is designed to suck in more betting nerds who think they have the drop on other punters because they can do maths! (Don't bet silly--Bet savvy!)
Incidentally, if you want to make money from gambling, find an old on-course bookie and ask to become his/her apprentice for a fee/cut. Once you've learned to do it, you can lay off your book in the far-East and use the margins to bet with other people's money. Sweet!;)
 
Last edited:
No one should be surprised that we are an outlier. We have PL and Championship level players playing against League One opponents. We got here because of prior inept management and the statistical model has no way to account for that.
 
I doubt they have ever seen a team so out of whack with their model as SAFC.

We should be in the relegation zone according to their model.
In fact we are second (and top if we win our game in hand).

The old saying 'the exception proves the rule' is much misunderstood.

In fact the archaic meaning of 'proves' is 'tests' - in other words, a single exception can test a theory to destruction.

Has anyone run our season to date through Champ Manager? Where does it place us?
 
For those who are interested, some interesting stats via Mark O'Haire's Twitter.

Sunderland are currently 16th on the expected goals measure, which has been discussed to death here, but are 6th when you only look at expected goals from open play. While the first measure predicts that Sunderland should concede more than they score, the open play measure suggests the opposite. The only other team who have a similar discrepancy between figures are Walsall, who have also overperforming their stats. While Sunderland are 10th for expected goals scored in general, they're 4th for expected goals from open play.

Ignoring the expected goals measure, Sunderland are 17th in the league for shots in the box compared to their opponents. on average, Sunderland take 7.12 shots in the box (3 less than Barnsley) while their opponents average 8.31 (3 more than Barnsley's opponents). The only teams to take less shots in the box this season are Oxford, Fleetwood, Peterborough and Bradford. Interesting that two of the top three are in the bottom 5 for shots taken in the box.

More surprisingly, for me at least, is that they are 21st in the league for touches in the box compared to their opponents, and that includes having the joint second lowest touches in the box (29.4, higher than only Fleetwood). On average, Sunderland's opponents have 7.1 more touches in the box compared to them, while Barnsley have 9.5 more touches in the box than their opponents.

I'm not an analyst of this, but it suggests a few things to me:

1) Sunderland and Peterborough are very clinical, taking less chances to score than most other teams. Both teams have better attackers than the rest of the league, so obviously quality is a factor in this.

2) Sunderland are more reliant on scoring from open play than other teams in the league.

3) Sunderland are letting opponents have more touches and shots in the box than other top teams, but those teams aren't taking advantage of this. This suggests good goalkeeping or luck and either poor defending or a defense that's happy for teams to have the ball in the box so long as they aren't threatening.

Mark O'Haire on Twitter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top