Experimental 361

[Youpies]

To be fair I read that as you pretty much converted your only chance in the game which is good. Whats not good is that you only created 1 chance

 

[Vanni]

I'm not a statto but can rather easily infact tell that that graph is a load of crap. Barnet should've scored 6 or 7, so where did that 3.71 come from? I read that as Barnet had less than 4 goal scoring opportunities, and did a very effective job at scoring 3 out of those 3 and a half chances they had.

And what does that 0.15 for Yeovil supposed to mean, they didn't even have a 15% of a goal scoring opportunity? That's like not even a corner kick.

 

[jacobncfc]

That's not quite it. Chances in football aren't converted anywhere near as regularly as you'do think - even what you'd describe as a sitter as probably only scored 50 or 60% of the time in reality.

An expected goals rating of 3.71 is very high in a game - suggests that Barnet created 9 or 10 good chances probably.

 

[Vanni]

Ah, right you are. There was something similar on the BBC site a few weeks back, and I actually got all the questions correct. For once!

 

[jacobncfc]

There's an obvious flaw in using it to show how games went, anyway - it'll consistently underrate teams who either play a possession game or get lots of crosses in. There's no way for a through ball or cross that is inches away from connecting, or a simple pass for a tap in that's underhit, to be incorporated into the data, even though they're positions that are more likely to lead to goals than a lot of shots are.

 

[BeesKnees]

A bit more info behind those figures, it shows that each chance is rated according to the percentage that are converted https://experimental361.com/2017/09/10/league-2-timelines-9-sep-2017/

 

[northstandexile]

That is why a penalty is given only a score of 0.7.

So teams miss three out of every ten. If so after our three misses already it means we are going to score our next five spot kicks after the two we converted on Saturday.

 

[Trapdoor]

So teams miss three out of every ten. If so after our three misses already it means we are going to score our next five spot kicks after the two we converted on Saturday.

That's not how probability works unfortunately.

 

[SkyBluesRose]

Latest scatter graphics from Experimental361:

 

[CCFC_Charlie]

Stats are starting to look very good for us, but need to make sure we're converting good performances into points.

 

[PaulHaddock]

Pretty bad stats for FGR, Chesterfield and us. But we're doing much better than those two?

 

[Habbinalan]

I knew we had a good keeper but.................

........expected goals against more than 12 in 8, Actual goals against 7 in 8.

Expcted goals scored - slightly more than Luton. Actual goals scored 7 v 17 (in last 8).

It's still bollocks for now isn't it? How many matches is this over again? Might it come into line by Xmas?

 

[CCFC_Charlie]

I knew we had a good keeper but.................

........expected goals against more than 12 in 8, Actual goals against 7 in 8.

Expcted goals scored - slightly more than Luton. Actual goals scored 7 v 17 (in last 8).

It's still bollocks for now isn't it? How many matches is this over again? Might it come into line by Xmas?

While the sample size is relatively small, it's still good as a predictive resource. Your stats would suggest that you're doing well to concede as few goals as you are, but perhaps aren't being as clinical as you should be. As things stand, you'd probably expect your goals conceded to go up, but your goals scored to follow a similar trend. If goals conceded stays at a similar rate without expected goals conceded shifting then you're goalkeeper is most likely having a very good season. If goals scored doesn't go up but you're creating the same level of opportunities, questions have to be asked of your strikers.

 

[shoddycollins]

At this stage of the season, a scoring few goals from lots of good chances, or scoring lots of goals from only a few good chances is as or more likely to be down to luck than the competence of strikers and keepers. Their competence does come into it but that's why measuring chances is a good way of getting an idea of who is doing well and who is struggling as early as possible. More often than not teams that are doing well in the table but don't look so great on e361 drop away and vice versa. Not to mention that if your performances are to do with having a striker who can score from relatively few chances, at this level you're almost certainly going to lose him in January. Last January pretty much all the top performing strikers left for higher division clubs.

 

[Vanni]

Not to mention that if your performances are to do with having a striker who can score from relatively few chances, at this level you're almost certainly going to lose him in January. Last January pretty much all the top performing strikers left for higher division clubs.

That shouldn't concern us then. Uche needs at least 6 chances before scoring one, and Jabo is not L1 level anymore. Plus we don't sell to other L2 clubs, our direct competitors

 

[SkyBluesRose]

latest scatter graphics: https://experimental361.com/2017/11/26/scatter-graphics-league-2-26-nov-2017/

 

[BeesKnees]

latest scatter graphics: https://experimental361.com/2017/11/26/scatter-graphics-league-2-26-nov-2017/

Confirms what Barnet fans already knew. The wheels have come off.

 

[Indian Dan]

We’ve got a couple of loose wheel nuts

 

[shoddycollins]

We're bang average

 

[Luke Imp]

latest scatter graphics: https://experimental361.com/2017/11/26/scatter-graphics-league-2-26-nov-2017/

Not surprised to see Coventry in the wasteful bit of the attacking part. Shot from anywhere and everywhere against us, so that must be the norm for them.