The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
The League table lies all the time. If you took a look at what it looked like at 6 games in, you'd think West Ham and Swansea were decent sides, and Man Utd might be title contenders. Were any of those things true?DO NOT LIKE STATES?
if you beat up states they will tell you anything?
The League table does not lie. We are sitting fourth with a very good defensive record and looking consistent this season, for a change. My only fear is, we go into Spurs collapse when it matters at the business end of the season. At the moment we are performing and looking fairly strong. We need to keep beating the lesser teams and get points off the better. We mustn't get bogged down with the EL and lose PL from. Lets take on Watford next and get 3 points and take each game there after...etc...
You are not understanding my point.The League table lies all the time. If you took a look at what it looked like at 6 games in, you'd think West Ham and Swansea were decent sides, and Man Utd might be title contenders. Were any of those things true?
The table is just a record of what happened.
Yes, but you're missing my point. I understand that's what the table says. What it doesn't say is how you got there.You are not understanding my point.
We are above Utd because we have picked up more points than them -the table reflects exactly this. Yes its a record of points earned over a season and will reflect the most successful teams in doing this. If a team wins all their opening 6 games of the season they will be top regardless how they do after.
"The table doesn't show how teams are playing"?Yes, but you're missing my point. I understand that's what the table says. What it doesn't say is how you got there.
West Ham this year is probably the best example, although we're a good one too. James York explained it best at week 6, I felt with this: (Elephants In The Room: West Ham, Leicester and Man Utd)
“In their last three games, all of which they won, West Ham have taken the lead inside ten minutes and in these games and the victory against Woolwich they have added to the score to make it 2-0.”
“Okay, that seems unlikely, but not entirely remarkable…”
“How about this then? In their four wins, West Ham have scored with their first shot on target.”
“Right… that’s interesting and sounds like a kind of thing that won’t repeat.”
“For sure, it won’t, it isn’t a skill. And you know what else? In each of those games, they also scored with their second shot on target.”
“Wow, Bilic for Prime Minister, right? I mean there may be a vacancy…”
What we find then is West Ham have spent more time this season at 2-0 than any other scoreline. They have spent 299 minutes leading, a full 76 minutes more than anyone else. With such regular and solid leads, it is arguable that they have been shelling for long periods of time, but this positive skew hasn’t stopped at their rate of scoring, the opposition are taking a ton of shots but only converting them at 7%, and the overall save percentage is a high 78%. It’s flowing right for West Ham at both ends. The problem being that these metrics have been shown not to sustain. West Ham’s underlying metrics have powered a freak run, will definitely decline and this is likely to be as good as it gets for them.
So, the results were the results, but how they got them suggested that it had more to do with having a horseshoe up their ass than actually being good at football. In contrast, at week 6, Spurs were mired in 9th, looking like mid-table mediocrity. Yet, according to ways of measuring shot quality, Tottenham were one of the 3 best teams in the land, in terms of how many chances we created, the quality of those chances, and the lack of quality and quantity of the chances we allowed. But our conversion rate was extremely low (around 6%). So, although we were playing better than almost anyone, the ball just wasn't going in the net for us.
This is where things get messy. The stats I tend to blather about talk about how probable something is. So, measuring shot quality talks about how likely the shots taken/created are to go in. There's no guarantee they really will.
But a team or a player's conversion rate (so, how many shots actually get scored) is something which has been shown to be very uneven. Generally, teams or players can score from 30% of their shots on target. But that's the average, over the long-term. In the short-term, it could be anywhere. From 6% (like for us at the start of the year) to 45% (Leicester up until this point). But in the long-term, things just about always average out to that 30% range. Some really good teams can do better than that, but not much.
But if you have a shit-hot conversion rate in your first 6 games and things are flying in, you'll look like Champions. Right up until you don't. The table doesn't lie, but it doesn't tell you anything about how teams play, either. And how they do it matters more, for the future, than what's actually happened in the past.
"A record of what happened" true- its 3 points for a winBad teams win games against the best, sometimes on merit, sometimes by ridiculous luck. That doesn't make the resulting points on the table "true" or "false". The table is just a record of what happened. .
I have to say that's a very simplistic view MrS."The table doesn't show how teams are playing"?
Utter nonesence-sorry. The PL table reflect how teams are doing , simple. We scored two goals, watford scored one, we get 3 points. This, regardless on how many shots,saves or corners anybody has. The table clearly shows we have more points than Villa. Our GD is better than Utd because we have scored more and conceded less. It realy doesnt matter if you have 2 shots or 10 and win 2-0, its 3 points. If anything you are a better team if you score more with less? The Chaves won the PL because they won more points than everyone else. if you need stats to tell you if a team is playing well, well, what can I say. Stats is just another American fad thats taking over our game and creating a smoke screen to what is really happening., the oppersite to what you are promoting.
We are 4th in the table regardless of how many shots we have on goal.I have to say that's a very simplistic view MrS.
For example our shots on target conversion rate is poor at the moment (below the current average for the PL this season).
This a statistic that the PL table does not show.
Given that Poch has shown concern in recent weeks about 'finishing the game off' I would say buying a striker in January is
not simply about giving HK a break but a realisation that we freshen up our attack.
A bit of a round-up:
Michael Caley:
Some thoughts from James York on a few different things, including Woolwich (and how we may have broken them):
http://statsbomb.com/2015/12/Woolwich-home-or-away-and-same-old-pulis/
And Analytics FC went over strikers from the lower leagues (Kane pops up as showing really well, which may just be a reminder to never listen to other clubs' fans about our players on loan):
Lost in Translation: Looking for lower league forwards
I am going to start by saying that we may just have to agree to disagree, but I cannot disagree strongly enough with this."The table doesn't show how teams are playing"?
Utter nonesence-sorry. The PL table reflect how teams are doing , simple. We scored two goals, watford scored one, we get 3 points. This, regardless on how many shots,saves or corners anybody has. The table clearly shows we have more points than Villa. Our GD is better than Utd because we have scored more and conceded less. It realy doesnt matter if you have 2 shots or 10 and win 2-0, its 3 points. If anything you are a better team if you score more with less? The Chaves won the PL because they won more points than everyone else. if you need stats to tell you if a team is playing well, well, what can I say. Stats is just another American fad thats taking over our game and creating a smoke screen to what is really happening., the oppersite to what you are promoting.
It's a prediction based on probability. So, it's based on the quality of chances created + conceded, and the likelihood of future repeatability. He also weights things based on past performances and payroll, among other things. Basically, those two teams have a long history of scoring and defending at this level. We've got 4 months. And both ourselves and Leicester, to this point, aren't getting results normally associated with our payrolls. So, either we're wildly exceeding normal performance, or our squad is rather underpaid.Looks stupidly bias to me. What reason to suspect Woolwich and City will overtake us on goal difference for a start? And with the top so tight how you can give all the weight to those teams over us and Leicester makes no answer either.
Yeah but it's probability calculated based on chosen variables, and reality is that a manager who knows what he's doing has a huge impact. It's one of the reasons Woolwich have a history of being up there. But perhaps that isn't accounted for or given enough weight in this calculator.It's a prediction based on probability. So, it's based on the quality of chances created + conceded, and the likelihood of future repeatability. He also weights things based on past performances and payroll, among other things. Basically, those two teams have a long history of scoring and defending at this level. We've got 4 months. And both ourselves and Leicester, to this point, aren't getting results normally associated with our payrolls. So, either we're wildly exceeding normal performance, or our squad is rather underpaid.
So, based on probability, he's predicting the most likely outcome. That's not the only possible outcome, but only 7% of the time would it be likely that our young squad really did grow-up overnight into title winners.
It's not impossible. Just not likely, given what's happened in the past.