Analytics

[Alex Watson]

I've started to follow football analytics more recently, as its a big thing in baseball, and has been used to great effect there. Found this blog post interesting, basically shows that Spurs have been incredibly unlucky so far in the season, and that the luck should trend back to the mean. Thoughts?

http://jameswgrayson.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/149-down-231-to-go-the-premiership-so-far/

 

[Bainzey]

Interesting statistics, it seems we are very unlucky.. factually. I didn't realise such stats were available.

Good find

 

[Alex Watson]

Yah, just browsing through that blog there's a bunch of interesting stats. For what its worth this guy also pegged Newcastles fall at the start of the season using these stats as predictors. Definitely something to keep an eye on

 

[Hegarz]

Yah, just browsing through that blog there's a bunch of interesting stats. For what its worth this guy also pegged Newcastles fall at the start of the season using these stats as predictors. Definitely something to keep an eye on

Although to be fair they have been plagued with injuries. They could be much better off at this time in the season had they not.

 

[VirginiaSpur]

This is some good shit.

 

[SanDiegoYiddo]

I'm a massive baseball stats geek, and this was pretty good. I need to look for more of this shit.

 

[penpen]

I'm a massive baseball stats geek, and this was pretty good. I need to look for more of this shit.

It sounds like using BABIP to evaluate pitcher/batter luck, right?

 

[SanDiegoYiddo]

It sounds like using BABIP to evaluate pitcher/batter luck, right?

I think football advanced metrics are as valuable/reliable as fielding SABR numbers (UZR,Rtot,Rtz) at the moment. I mean they show who is better for the most part but not at set in stone as batting statistics. If any of that makes sense.

 

[SanDiegoYiddo]

BABIP is a great comparison though.

 

[penpen]

I think football advanced metrics are as valuable/reliable as fielding SABR numbers (UZR,Rtot,Rtz) at the moment. I mean they show who is better for the most part but not at set in stone as batting statistics. If any of that makes sense.

Yeah I meant more like the rationale behind his analysis reminds me of how BABIP is used: see whose save % or scoring % is unusually high or low, to figure out who has been unusually lucky (West Brom) or unlucky (us).

 

[SanDiegoYiddo]

Yeah I meant more like the rationale behind his analysis reminds me of how BABIP is used: see whose save % or scoring % is unusually high or low, to figure out who has been unusually lucky (West Brom) or unlucky (us).

Absolutely agree, I was just going off on my own (possibly dumb) thought.

 

[Éperons]

Thanks for this. The comparison to BABIP is spot on and confirms some of the "only Spurs!" doom and gloom here, where we seem to let in astonishingly soft or flukey goals. There's absolutely no chance that our defense and goal-keeping are of relegation quality, so that simply will regress, meaning not that we'll now put in league-leading performances to cancel out the dregs that we've already experienced, but, rather, that top quarter squad should pull the numbers up to a degree where hopefully we'll be about neutral in sv% by the end of the season, which, coupled with our quality shooting (we're fifth in sh%, which sounds about right), etc., should keep us high in the table. As the author says--despite our keeping, we've still got points in the bank, and that's super valuable. ("win while playing ugly")

 

[Alex Watson]

So in a similar vein to the link posted above, the same guy has just posted his end of season "review". The data seems to suggest that Spurs were Spursy and one of the unluckiest teams in the league.

http://jameswgrayson.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/the-2012-13-premiership-season-in-one-graphic/

 

[Anthony Beale]

basically if we'd had Uniteds "Luck" we'd have won the league...

 

[pbesmoove]

Run/point/goal difference is usually a strong indicator of success. In that case we were not that unlucky. Football stats are nothing like baseball stats.

 

[penpen]

I want to believe in the power of math but it's all too convenient.

"We were secretly the best team in the league, just really unlucky."

 

[sammyspurs]

I hope the club doesnt use this bollocks to justify not signing anyone, or trying to improve our faults.

I can just see Levy licking his lips:

"Its ok Andre, we werent shit up front, we were unlucky......and those mountains of goals we let in from set pieces? Blame the 4th official. This is gonna be a nice cheap summer!"

 

[penpen]

I think it's more likely our play style inflates the shot ratio metric. This year, we tended to control the ball without really penetrating, and end up taking a lot of long-range speculative efforts. Meanwhile the high line prevents our opponents from taking many shots at the other end, but those that do occur end up being more dangerous.

 

[Éperons]

I think it's more likely our play style inflates the shot ratio metric. This year, we tended to control the ball without really penetrating, and end up taking a lot of long-range speculative efforts. Meanwhile the high line prevents our opponents from taking many shots at the other end, but those that do occur end up being more dangerous.

Yeah, it's a little slippery to simply call Spurs "unlucky" without explaining what PDO is. But to Grayson's credit, he does give links to an explanation of PDO.

We were unlucky because we got very few goals for how many shots we took and let in many goals for how few saves we got. Whether that's actually "unlucky" is up for debate. And penpen describes the consensus we established when Carlito went on a toy throwing rampage about how "bad" Lloris's save percentage was.

PDO was developed for hockey, and I think Grayson is also just seeing if it can be used for football as well. I'm not sure it can be.

Incidentally, the last time I looked at this, our shot rate had gone down dramatically (this was, I think, during our unbeaten run). We were still scoring about the same number of goals a game, but taking far fewer shots. I'd not say we were also being more lucky.

OTOH, a match like Sunderland home certainly makes us feel "unlucky", since we're riddling the goal with shots, but none of them manage to squeeze through.

 

[Kalyl]

Yeah, it's a little slippery to simply call Spurs "unlucky" without explaining what PDO is. But to Grayson's credit, he does give links to an explanation of PDO.

We were unlucky because we got very few goals for how many shots we took and let in many goals for how few saves we got. Whether that's actually "unlucky" is up for debate. And penpen describes the consensus we established when Carlito went on a toy throwing rampage about how "bad" Lloris's save percentage was.

PDO was developed for hockey, and I think Grayson is also just seeing if it can be used for football as well. I'm not sure it can be.

Incidentally, the last time I looked at this, our shot rate had gone down dramatically (this was, I think, during our unbeaten run). We were still scoring about the same number of goals a game, but taking far fewer shots. I'd not say we were also being more lucky.

OTOH, a match like Sunderland home certainly makes us feel "unlucky", since we're riddling the goal with shots, but none of them manage to squeeze through.

For me the most unlucky thing about that match was the two three penalties not given, not the amount of shots not going in, although we should be able to do better with our shots too.