Topic: Statistics and Analytics - insight into our performance

[Homo rubrum]

I can get my head around the predictability you gain from using ExpG vs counting on 'finishing ability' (which could perhaps be called 'scoring form' in this case, to denote the fluctuations in it which render it less informative). 

What I'm having some trouble with is how that helps a scout:
Me, being a layman, it would help hugely.  I'd see some no-name blast in a worldy and call John for the donut money.  He'd open the excel sheet Linda keeps the stats updated in, and tell me that this player was scoring well above his normal form.  Case closed.

But if I'm a scout, and I know the game, I would've been able to tell that, right?   I would know what a good scoring opportunity looked like, and I would see who was getting themselves into them.  Taking it a little further, if you just go by the pure numbers, wouldn't you end up signing a lot of Hendersons?  Players with legs playing in teams that create chances for fun?  They'd be in the 'misfit toys' category too, as they'd be cheap relative to their ExpG precisely because of their poor finishing.

Does ExpG not actually correspond more correctly to a team than a player, since it is taking so many things which the individual has no control over into account?  Any stat which purports to indicate the likelihood of a goalscorer scoring goals, but doesn't take into account his goalscoring prowess has to be weighted away from that individual, I would think.   

[Halcyon Lissome]

Okay, that's much clearer.

Now my next question - What influences positioning?

Obviously, many things, which would make tracking each shot by those influences difficult. But insofar as we care, we can just measure the amount and frequency they get into those shooting positions. Because those influences (dribbling, movement, pass, etc) are a means to an end, so to say, and here it doesn't matter how it happens but that it happens at all. Obviously, it's not a perfect model or picture of the game but I guess the fact that it's as reliable as Elston says makes it valuable.

[The Woolster]

Another recent stats article which adds to the shooting skill debate

http://2plus2equals11.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/scoring-ability-the-good-the-bad-and-the-messi/

[The Woolster]

I do also think that scouts could use a lot more help from this kind of analysis than they probably get. If you'd just followed Ted Knutson's transfer advice this summer--a random financial analyst who likes to bet on and write about football in his free time--you would've been better off than  70%+ of clubs.

Ted is actually a bookie, he's the Premier League trader for a a betting firm

[The Woolster]

So where do opposition defenders and goalkeepers come into it? Does shot quality change by level of goalkeeper or number of defenders in between the ball and the goal, even if the position is a "good" position?

I haven't looked at this at player level, but I have looked at it at team level. I'm a big fan of Opta's Big Chance stat (aka lear Cut Chance), and these types of chances take inot account the positioning of the defence.

I haven't written about it yet, but I found that the correlation between a team's conversion of Big Chances in year 1 and year 2 is essentially zero.

Now clearly not all big chances are the same either, and I think the quality of big chance will also come into it, but to me it is an indicator that there is not a 'skill' in converting easier chances, and that other variables have a much bigger impact.

Now by skill, I don't mean technique, I mean the ability to repeat the conversion of those chances from one year to the next. If something is not repeatable, in general, then from a stats perspective, it is not considered a 'skill'. There will of course be those players/teams that do repeat good (or bad) conversion, the issue is that we often don't have enough observations to be able to tell if that is just random chance or if it is actually down to skill.

[The Woolster]

Goal chances decrease the more touches a player takes before the shot. Plenty of the previous studies of the game have shown this, so it's incredibly relevant. Interesting that this model doesn't take this into account.

Unfortunately, as lay people, we don't have access to the number of touches taken before each shot (not that I know of anyway). What some people have done is looked at the ExpG at the position they received the ball and the ExpG after they have have taken the shot. I do think this is one way we might be able to isolate skill levels for different players, but I think they/we need a few more years of data to be able to do that.

So by this token, if we can coach a player to get into the right areas of the box, we can create a goalscorer. Would that be a fair conclusion from this model? If finishing is indeed an unimportant skill, then really anyone can score a consistently high rate of goals, yes?

So again, if skill is only a tiny factor in goalscoring, any club can theoretically make a killing on the transfer market by buying up small market players from any position, and coaching them to arrive in the box at certain areas, and they will score goals, correct?

You have to make some assumptions in any model, one assumption for this model is that if a player is playing in the top division of England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France, then you are already an elite player, and that if you take more than 10 shots a season, that you are someone who gets into goalscoring positions (this could be set higher to isolate strikers, but then you'd have less observations). Of course some players are still better than others, so you look at the average, and you have the baseline to compare players to the average elite player.

So, the conclusion is not that you can take a player from any league that plays any position and turn them into a goal scorer, as the model assumes these players have a certain level of ability and get themselves into a position to take at least 1 shot every 4 games played.

[The Woolster]

Which is basically how things are done now anyway. My issue is not without how it could be put to use, but with the idea that finishing is an unimportant skill, and is less important than positioning. I really want to see how that is justified.

And so going back to my last post, with these types of studies, they on the aggregate level, so we get the 'average' player (and remember, this is the average elite player). And what it is saying is that for the average player, the most important thing that affects their conversion rate is the positions that they get into, and not their ability to shoot.

However, what the study also shows is that, when you isolate for location, there are very few players who finish consistantly and significantly above average.

Which then I hope helps to answer your later question

What separates an average goalscorer from a good goalscorer from a great goalscorer, if they all get into the same positions to shoot?

The actual answer from a statistical point of view is that we often don't have enough observations to give an answer.

But we have to go with what we've got, so the average goalscorer will have seasons above and below average conversion rates, the good goal scorer will generally have above average conversion rates, but might occasionally have below average and significantly above average, and the great goalscorer will have a number of seasons significntly above average.

The issue is, it is actually quite difficult to seperate the average from the good.

[The Woolster]

This is a really interesting conversation and I'm enjoying reading the discussion. Hope I'm not sticking my nose in too far 

I'm a relative newcomer to following football at this detail but have been watching for years. (I'm Canadian, but lived in England as a child, and my (English) father instilled a love of the game).

Regarding the discussion on finishing skill, I think there's a related stat that comes from NHL hockey (like I said, I am Canadian) that is relevant here. It's called shooting percentage, and is pretty much exactly what you would expect - the number of goals / number of shots on goal.  Now because the number of shots is so much higher (25-30 per team per game x 82 games), shooting %'ge with the top offensive players becomes a real statistic because the sample size is high enough.

The point that I'm getting to is that many of the people who are doing advanced stats in hockey talk about "regression to the mean", where you look at a player who is doing really well - is their shooting percentage much higher than the historical value? If so, they're probably just on a lucky streak where the puck is going in the net a lot. Don't give them a long term contract based on that year. One thing that must be noted is that some players have hugely higher career shooting percentagethan others - and this is where I'm leading...

It's obvious to anyone who watches the game that some players are better finishers than others and that it's a skill. Give Suarez or Sturridge the chance that Coutinho created for Henderson in the Arsenal game (the one he chipped wide) and there's a much greater chance of it going in. So that being said...

Once the number of shots becomes statistically significant, it must be possible to take finishing into account. What's this number? How old does a striker have to be for him to take enough shots? And if you start tracking it from when they are younger, can you get more information to go along with all the other stats to make more informed decision

Most of the advances football stats have been copied over from hockey, and they are showing similar results.

As for what is that number of shots, I'm not sure, but I'd say only a few players have enough when looking at a season, and the issue over numerous seasons is that teams change over time, managers of teams change over time, therefore tactics change over time and not forgetting that the players themselves also change teams, which again makes it very hard to isolate the 'skill' of shooting, as ther are so many other factors.

[The Woolster]

I think that's the whole point!

I'll see if I can explain the Messi example better (if not for you it might help someone else), and if I'm wrong anyone please chime in.

Shots are categorized based on where they are taken from.

Given the number of shots Messi has taken, and from what location/category they were taken from, he's expected to have scored 11 goals this season. In fact any player taking those shots from those locations would be expected to score 11 goals, because on average that's what the data says players do.

Messi has actually scored 9 goals, so has converted less than your average player is expected to by the model. Compare that the year before when he converted way more than your average player and you have this wild fluctuation. In which case, statistically, how does Messi's conversion/finishing give any real indicator of whether he's a good striker? One year he's amazing, one year he's below average.

Unlike conversion rates though...

It's a bit like the old 'proper' football adage about having to be in the right place to miss them. You can't bank on Sturridge scoring everything in sight next season because- like you say- what about "the defenders around you, the position of the keeper, the flight of the ball you're connecting with." Statistically what you can expect though is that Sturridge will keep getting himself into those areas which is where he will continually set himself apart and that is something that statistically is a lot easier to predict and therefore scout.

(I hope I've gotten that right, sorry if not)

This is more or less how I have come to see it after I looked at the Clear Cut Chances. It is the creating of them, rather than the finishing of them, that is important. Of course they need to be finished, but even those with really bad conversion rates convert at least 25% of the CCCs, as opposed to the 9-10% for the average chance, and that 25% conversion rate is not an indicator of what future conversion of CCCs will be.

[The Woolster]

I can get my head around the predictability you gain from using ExpG vs counting on 'finishing ability' (which could perhaps be called 'scoring form' in this case, to denote the fluctuations in it which render it less informative). 

What I'm having some trouble with is how that helps a scout:
Me, being a layman, it would help hugely.  I'd see some no-name blast in a worldy and call John for the donut money.  He'd open the excel sheet Linda keeps the stats updated in, and tell me that this player was scoring well above his normal form.  Case closed.

But if I'm a scout, and I know the game, I would've been able to tell that, right?   I would know what a good scoring opportunity looked like, and I would see who was getting themselves into them.  Taking it a little further, if you just go by the pure numbers, wouldn't you end up signing a lot of Hendersons?  Players with legs playing in teams that create chances for fun?  They'd be in the 'misfit toys' category too, as they'd be cheap relative to their ExpG precisely because of their poor finishing.

You'd think that, but then you look around and you see players being signed for big money on the back of 1 season (or even less) of scoring a load of goals.

Does ExpG not actually correspond more correctly to a team than a player, since it is taking so many things which the individual has no control over into account?  Any stat which purports to indicate the likelihood of a goalscorer scoring goals, but doesn't take into account his goalscoring prowess has to be weighted away from that individual, I would think.

I agree, I very rarely look at players as there is too much noise. However, we as fans love to talk about individual players, so this type of analysis will inevitably be used.

[The Woolster]

I'm talking to myself now aren't I...?

Yes, you are.

[swordfishtrombone]

Some great posts there Woolster - thanks!

[PhaseOfPlay]

Some great posts there Woolster - thanks!

Seconded.

[ElstonGunn]

Sorry for forgetting about for so long. Was quite busy this weekend.

Goal chances decrease the more touches a player takes before the shot. Plenty of the previous studies of the game have shown this, so it's incredibly relevant. Interesting that this model doesn't take this into account.

It actually may, I really don't know. All the various ExpG details are proprietary. We just know it does include the stuff I said before.

Team success is one thing, but the statement it is making is flying in the face of the knowledge of the game on an individual. With that being the case, the burden of proof for it's veracity is on this model, I think.

So by this token, if we can coach a player to get into the right areas of the box, we can create a goalscorer. Would that be a fair conclusion from this model? If finishing is indeed an unimportant skill, then really anyone can score a consistently high rate of goals, yes?

So again, if skill is only a tiny factor in goalscoring, any club can theoretically make a killing on the transfer market by buying up small market players from any position, and coaching them to arrive in the box at certain areas, and they will score goals, correct?

No, that's not the conclusion I don't think. The conclusion is that anyone who's made it to the top level as a striker probably has some base level of finishing ability. The difference between that base level and elite finishing ability is relatively unimporant, not that Phil Barsdley or whatever would be a great striker.

[ElstonGunn]

Great chat going on lads. Keep it up. Just wanted to point out that the reason the model finds finishing is an 'unimportant' skill is because of the fluctuations between different years which in turn could be influenced by tactics, how the player got into the position, the positions of the defenders and the goalkeeper etc. But could it also be that the difference is negligible simply because the shots statistics were obtained for mostly strikers that have actually been trained for their finishing skill since they were kids ? So what I'm trying to say is given most top flight strikers are top flight strikers by virtue of having some attributes, physical, mental and tactical and have been trained to harness, the difference in finishing ability itself is so negligible when compared to the ability to get into the regions where shots carry a greater chance of a goal. So perhaps including a goalkeeper's shooting stats if it is possible would indicate a clear difference in 'finishing ability' than including only strikers who are more or less 'maxed out' ? Of course there will always be outliers but that's to be expected with stats.

Yes, this is it exactly. I should have been more clear. It's not that you don't have to learn how to finish, it's that there doesn't seem to be particularly significant variations among top-level strikers sufficient to cause large differences in goal totals.

[ElstonGunn]

Ted is actually a bookie, he's the Premier League trader for a a betting firm

Could swear when I've googled his name looking for his old blog I turned up articles written for some financial analysis company, but cool! I stand corrected.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Sorry for forgetting about for so long. Was quite busy this weekend. It actually may, I really don't know. All the various ExpG details are proprietary. We just know it does include the stuff I said before.
No, that's not the conclusion I don't think. The conclusion is that anyone who's made it to the top level as a striker probably has some base level of finishing ability. The difference between that base level and elite finishing ability is relatively unimporant, not that Phil Barsdley or whatever would be a great striker.

Great stuff Elston, thanks for being patient. I think the main contention between our points of view was a misunderstanding of terms, and on my part, a failure to understand the underlying assumptions. So here is what I think I understand now, and correct me if I'm wrong:

Assumption 1 - The model would be used to only look at strikers/forwards

Assumption 2 - A striker or forward at the top level will be played in that position because they have demonstrated a consistent level of actual finishing technique at a young age, and so has been played in a position that gets the most out of that technique in their career

Assumption 3 - The model is useful in comparing two or more strikers for comparative/scouting purposes

Assumption 4 - Scouts might be tipped off to a potential signing by their bare goalscoring record and shots-to-goal/goal-to-games ratios and suchlike

So if these assumptions are correct, then what you were trying to say to me is NOT that skill is unimportant, but that if comparing two players of presumed equal skill (or analysis of a potential signing against the forward you already have, for example), it is better to look at the positions they get into, rather than their overall goal output, because the output can fluctuate due to many factors (environment, age, injury, tactics, pressure) from season to season, but that a player who takes most of their shots from certain key areas near the goal, will consistently do so from year to year, and this is a more reliable indicator of a potential signing's value than their bare goal ratios.

Would this be closer to what you/the model were saying?

[ElstonGunn]

Ah, that'll teach me to post before reading the whole thing through. Thanks, Woolster, for explaining everything better than I could.

[ElstonGunn]

Great stuff Elston, thanks for being patient. I think the main contention between our points of view was a misunderstanding of terms, and on my part, a failure to understand the underlying assumptions. So here is what I think I understand now, and correct me if I'm wrong:

Assumption 1 - The model would be used to only look at strikers/forwards

Assumption 2 - A striker or forward at the top level will be played in that position because they have demonstrated a consistent level of actual finishing technique at a young age, and so has been played in a position that gets the most out of that technique in their career

Assumption 3 - The model is useful in comparing two or more strikers for comparative/scouting purposes

Assumption 4 - Scouts might be tipped off to a potential signing by their bare goalscoring record and shots-to-goal/goal-to-games ratios and suchlike

So if these assumptions are correct, then what you were trying to say to me is NOT that skill is unimportant, but that if comparing two players of presumed equal skill (or analysis of a potential signing against the forward you already have, for example), it is better to look at the positions they get into, rather than their overall goal output, because the output can fluctuate due to many factors (environment, age, injury, tactics, pressure) from season to season, but that a player who takes most of their shots from certain key areas near the goal, will consistently do so from year to year, and this is a more reliable indicator of a potential signing's value than their bare goal ratios.

Would this be closer to what you/the model were saying?

Yeah, that's pretty much how I understand it. Cheers.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I understand it. Cheers.

Excellent.

The thing is, traditional scouting already looks at where forwards take their shots from. Even for Liverpool, as far back as Shanks (who is increasingly coming across as ahead of his time) in the 60's speaking about Roger Hunt not scoring and defending by declaring "he gets into the right places to miss them". It doesn't seem to be that the ExpG model is saying anything new - but like all statistical analyses of the game, it is putting quantity to knowledge. It seems to be a better model than "Clear Cut Chances Created" and those kinds of metrics from a few years ago. But it's still only verbalising what "intuition" and "knowledge of the game" already looked at, I think?

[ElstonGunn]

Excellent.

The thing is, traditional scouting already looks at where forwards take their shots from. Even for Liverpool, as far back as Shanks (who is increasingly coming across as ahead of his time) in the 60's speaking about Roger Hunt not scoring and defending by declaring "he gets into the right places to miss them". It doesn't seem to be that the ExpG model is saying anything new - but like all statistical analyses of the game, it is putting quantity to knowledge. It seems to be a better model than "Clear Cut Chances Created" and those kinds of metrics from a few years ago. But it's still only verbalising what "intuition" and "knowledge of the game" already looked at, I think?

I wouldn't say "verbalising," but rather "quantifying." First, unless you say otherwise, I'd be surprised if scouts discounted perceived differences in finishing ability among potential striker purchases as much as this suggest. Second, and more importantly, it actually covers everything. A scout of course isn't going to watch every game a potential purchase plays, and even if he does there are all kind of well-established biases that may affect his memory of what he saw. ExpG can keep track of everything, so you don't have to rely exclusively on your "lying eyes." (Note, that I'm of course not suggesting scouts are useless--they're absolutely necessary.)

Aspas, for instance, scored the majority of his non-penalty goals from areas where it was highly improbable to score from. If a scout could have looked at his ExpG and seen something well below 9 (his non-penalty goals), it would've thrown up a big red flag.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I wouldn't say "verbalising," but rather "quantifying." First, unless you say otherwise, I'd be surprised if scouts discounted perceived differences in finishing ability among potential striker purchases as much as this suggest.

By "Finishing ability", do you mean "goals scored apart from penalties"?

Second, and more importantly, it actually covers everything. A scout of course isn't going to watch every game a potential purchase plays, and even if he does there are all kind of well-established biases that may affect his memory of what he saw.

Scouts don't go and watch a game and then go home and recall key points from memory. That's an old-fashioned view of the job. Good scouts take notes, diagrams, basic stats, etc. as they are watching - or, if they have access to film, will record specific notes on specific technical/tactical/physical/psychological issues with the benefit of replay. The image of the scout as a bloke in the stands with nothing but a cup of weak Bovril and a flawed memory is long consigned to the dustbin or the lower levels - but even then, there is some forward-thinking modern methods being used

ExpG can keep track of everything, so you don't have to rely exclusively on your "lying eyes." (Note, that I'm of course not suggesting scouts are useless--they're absolutely necessary.)

As I said, the image of scouts working purely from memory is fundamentally flawed.

Aspas, for instance, scored the majority of his non-penalty goals from areas where it was highly improbable to score from. If a scout could have looked at his ExpG and seen something well below 9 (his non-penalty goals), it would've thrown up a big red flag.

You're assuming that he was recruited purely as a goalscoring forward though. What if he was recruited for different qualities?

[ElstonGunn]

By "Finishing ability", do you mean "goals scored apart from penalties"?


Scouts don't go and watch a game and then go home and recall key points from memory. That's an old-fashioned view of the job. Good scouts take notes, diagrams, basic stats, etc. as they are watching - or, if they have access to film, will record specific notes on specific technical/tactical/physical/psychological issues with the benefit of replay. The image of the scout as a bloke in the stands with nothing but a cup of weak Bovril and a flawed memory is long consigned to the dustbin or the lower levels - but even then, there is some forward-thinking modern methods being used


As I said, the image of scouts working purely from memory is fundamentally flawed.

It doesn't have to be "pure" memory to be applicable. I can't tell if you're quibbling or if you're actually trying to argue that more complete quantification of observations isn't of any help to scouts because there are no scouting biases that can be ameliorated by supplementing evaluation with stats. That's all without mentioning, of course, that stats like these will probably be primarily used to determine who the scouts look at in the first place, and eliminating the really obviously bad buys, rather than making the final call.

You're assuming that he was recruited purely as a goalscoring forward though. What if he was recruited for different qualities?

We never know why anyone was bought. If we're supposed to assume a level of credulousness that we can't assume that a player who has played striker his entire career, and then subsequently played striker in every preseason game, and came in a little before our previous third striker was loaned out, and then has played striker* every time he's played but once or twice, wasn't bought to be a striker, then we might as well not bother assessing any moves.

*And please don't try to tell me he wasn't playing striker in the early games. There was a game or two where he was more obviously the second striker focusing on adding a body to midfield without the ball, but his average position in attack was usually in advance of Sturridge.

[PhaseOfPlay]

It doesn't have to be "pure" memory to be applicable. I can't tell if you're quibbling or if you're actually trying to argue that more complete quantification of observations isn't of any help to scouts because there are no scouting biases that can be ameliorated by supplementing evaluation with stats. That's all without mentioning, of course, that stats like these will probably be primarily used to determine who the scouts look at in the first place, and eliminating the really obviously bad buys, rather than making the final call.

Neither. I'm saying that you seem unaware of how scouts do their job, and what it is they look for. Of course data is helpful, and eliminates bias - but the things that scouts actually look at are the same things the ExpG is showing. My interpretation of your initial post is that football is doing it all wrong, and that they are looking for the wrong things. I stand to be corrected on that, though, if I've misunderstood?

We never know why anyone was bought. If we're supposed to assume a level of credulousness that we can't assume that a player who has played striker his entire career, and then subsequently played striker in every preseason game, and came in a little before our previous third striker was loaned out, and then has played striker* every time he's played but once or twice, wasn't bought to be a striker, then we might as well not bother assessing any moves.

*And please don't try to tell me he wasn't playing striker in the early games. There was a game or two where he was more obviously the second striker focusing on adding a body to midfield without the ball, but his average position in attack was usually in advance of Sturridge.

I never said anything about positions. I said "qualities". I'm saying perhaps the scouts knew about Aspas' goal positions, but were looking at different facets of his game and how it might fit into the overall game plan. In other words, perhaps he wasn't bought primarily for the goals he might provide, but for what else he might provide on top of that.

[anything else]

 

[Homo rubrum]

I think it's time for Woolster to start talking to himself again until consensus can be reached. 

[The Woolster]

I think it's time for Woolster to start talking to himself again until consensus can be reached.

I took my pills this evening, I should be ok now

[The Woolster]

Ah, that'll teach me to post before reading the whole thing through. Thanks, Woolster, for explaining everything better than I could.

I'm also self deprecating, so can spot it others...

I read what you said in this thread and thought that you should consider writing a stats blog yourself.

[The Woolster]

Great stuff Elston, thanks for being patient. I think the main contention between our points of view was a misunderstanding of terms, and on my part, a failure to understand the underlying assumptions. So here is what I think I understand now, and correct me if I'm wrong:

Assumption 1 - The model would be used to only look at strikers/forwards

Assumption 2 - A striker or forward at the top level will be played in that position because they have demonstrated a consistent level of actual finishing technique at a young age, and so has been played in a position that gets the most out of that technique in their career

Assumption 3 - The model is useful in comparing two or more strikers for comparative/scouting purposes

Assumption 4 - Scouts might be tipped off to a potential signing by their bare goalscoring record and shots-to-goal/goal-to-games ratios and suchlike

So if these assumptions are correct, then what you were trying to say to me is NOT that skill is unimportant, but that if comparing two players of presumed equal skill (or analysis of a potential signing against the forward you already have, for example), it is better to look at the positions they get into, rather than their overall goal output, because the output can fluctuate due to many factors (environment, age, injury, tactics, pressure) from season to season, but that a player who takes most of their shots from certain key areas near the goal, will consistently do so from year to year, and this is a more reliable indicator of a potential signing's value than their bare goal ratios.

Would this be closer to what you/the model were saying?

I would say that is, more or less, what the original blog post was alluding to, although I do know they look at more than just shot position in their ExpG metric, but without wanting to speak for him, I think there may have been some artistic license used in his post to tell the story (in my opinion, he is one of the best stats writers out there, and infact it was 2 of his blog posts that inspired my idea for the Opta forum).

Others have taken the opposite view, like this post by Colin Trainor, who was one of the other speakers at the Opta conference, did with this post http://www.statsbomb.com/2013/08/spurs-acquisition-of-soldado/

Personally speaking, I don't think we've yet got enough data to know either way, the blog that got us talking about this had the number of shots required set at 10, which is really too low to isolate the better strikers. Football stats, at least in the public domain, is still in its very early stages, and we are basically learning something new what seems like every other week.

[The Woolster]

By "Finishing ability", do you mean "goals scored apart from penalties"?


Scouts don't go and watch a game and then go home and recall key points from memory. That's an old-fashioned view of the job. Good scouts take notes, diagrams, basic stats, etc. as they are watching - or, if they have access to film, will record specific notes on specific technical/tactical/physical/psychological issues with the benefit of replay. The image of the scout as a bloke in the stands with nothing but a cup of weak Bovril and a flawed memory is long consigned to the dustbin or the lower levels - but even then, there is some forward-thinking modern methods being used

Neither. I'm saying that you seem unaware of how scouts do their job, and what it is they look for. Of course data is helpful, and eliminates bias - but the things that scouts actually look at are the same things the ExpG is showing. My interpretation of your initial post is that football is doing it all wrong, and that they are looking for the wrong things. I stand to be corrected on that, though, if I've misunderstood?

I have no doubt that scouts are looking at this kind of stuff, however there is a limit on how many teams, players, matches etc that scouts can watch, so as Elston says, these type of analysis should be considered as a flag, to look for good players, but perhaps more importantly, as an early warning signal. Despite the scouts looking at things like shot location, there are still large numbers of transfers that simply don't work out, and we've had our fair share at Liverpool. I think Paul Tomkins looked at transfer success and found 50% of transfers could be considered as not working out, if that is correct, that is not a very good hit rate, so whilst I don't think we can say that football is doing it all wrong, its clearly not all right either.

I was chatting with a few guys on Twitter the last week or so about how all the football analyst roles that are advertised require you to have a Sports Science degree, and that football is perhaps a bit too insular. Some of the skills I think football analytics will be using going forwards will not just require statistical knowledge, but will need an understanding of some economic/financial/business theories too.

 

[The Woolster]

The first write up from the Opta forum is now up for those interested, looking at the similarity of midfielders http://www.optasportspro.com/about/optapro-blog/posts/2014/the-optapro-analytics-forum-classifying-central-midfielders.aspx

[BreakfastPercy]

The first write up from the Opta forum is now up for those interested, looking at the similarity of midfielders http://www.optasportspro.com/about/optapro-blog/posts/2014/the-optapro-analytics-forum-classifying-central-midfielders.aspx

Cheers The Woolster, very interesting posts. Glad the Optaforum went well!

I do wonder whether the fact the title of that particular piece was 'How to scout a striker?' maybe meant PoP & Elston thought they were further apart than they were/are?

[Prof]

This thread has evolved into an absolute belter.  I wish I had the time to jump into some of these conversations.  As it is, I'm just lurking and enjoying the debate 

[Prof]

The first write up from the Opta forum is now up for those interested, looking at the similarity of midfielders http://www.optasportspro.com/about/optapro-blog/posts/2014/the-optapro-analytics-forum-classifying-central-midfielders.aspx

Well blow me sideways

This is really similar to what I did for my BSc Major Project 12 years ago.  The difference is, I had to get all the data myself using manual notations.  At the time, I 'discovered' that Vieira was boss.  It took me weeks of jog-shuttling VHS tapes to find that out 

[The Woolster]

Well blow me sideways

This is really similar to what I did for my BSc Major Project 12 years ago.  The difference is, I had to get all the data myself using manual notations.  At the time, I 'discovered' that Vieira was boss.  It took me weeks of jog-shuttling VHS tapes to find that out 

Sounds like you should put yourself up for the next Opta forum if they have another one!

[PhaseOfPlay]

I have no doubt that scouts are looking at this kind of stuff, however there is a limit on how many teams, players, matches etc that scouts can watch, so as Elston says, these type of analysis should be considered as a flag, to look for good players, but perhaps more importantly, as an early warning signal. Despite the scouts looking at things like shot location, there are still large numbers of transfers that simply don't work out, and we've had our fair share at Liverpool. I think Paul Tomkins looked at transfer success and found 50% of transfers could be considered as not working out, if that is correct, that is not a very good hit rate, so whilst I don't think we can say that football is doing it all wrong, its clearly not all right either.

I was chatting with a few guys on Twitter the last week or so about how all the football analyst roles that are advertised require you to have a Sports Science degree, and that football is perhaps a bit too insular. Some of the skills I think football analytics will be using going forwards will not just require statistical knowledge, but will need an understanding of some economic/financial/business theories too.

They should require knowledge of the game too, no? If it were up to me, Football Analysts would have to have the same coaching qualifications as coaches themselves

[PhaseOfPlay]

I have no doubt that scouts are looking at this kind of stuff, however there is a limit on how many teams, players, matches etc that scouts can watch, so as Elston says, these type of analysis should be considered as a flag, to look for good players, but perhaps more importantly, as an early warning signal. Despite the scouts looking at things like shot location, there are still large numbers of transfers that simply don't work out, and we've had our fair share at Liverpool. I think Paul Tomkins looked at transfer success and found 50% of transfers could be considered as not working out, if that is correct, that is not a very good hit rate, so whilst I don't think we can say that football is doing it all wrong, its clearly not all right either.

But does that not assume that the 50% failure is down to bad scouting, and not other factors?

I was chatting with a few guys on Twitter the last week or so about how all the football analyst roles that are advertised require you to have a Sports Science degree, and that football is perhaps a bit too insular. Some of the skills I think football analytics will be using going forwards will not just require statistical knowledge, but will need an understanding of some economic/financial/business theories too.

Football is definitely insular, btw, but there are a LOT of people involved, at all levels, who love this stuff and want to see more of it. But there's insularity in a lot of analytics too, where it seems that the perception of football people is that they are closed-minded and suspicious of numbers, when in fact that's only true for a section (usually older) of the football populace. What football people like me want to guard against is any blanket statement or conclusion that allows others to remove skill from the game - which is where my consternation (due to my own misunderstanding) came from. Any statement that can be interpreted as "it doesn't matter if you can finish, it just matters where you are" would be snapped up by unscrupulous coaches looking to improve their win-rates without developing players, in much the same way as the statistics that begot the long ball game did (and I'm not saying that's what Elston said - I know he didn't, now; but it seemed that he was edging in that direction).

[The Woolster]

They should require knowledge of the game too, no? If it were up to me, Football Analysts would have to have the same coaching qualifications as coaches themselves

To be an actual football analyst, yes they do, but there is plenty of people out there with football knowledge without the Sports Science degree that I'm sure that could do the job, and having coaching badges I think should clearly be relevant experience, but that does't seem to be enough for the roles advertised.

However I'd say at the clubs who have the budget could have a statistician/data analyst without any football knowledge because they are looking specifically at the numbers and what they can tell us. 

[The Woolster]

But does that not assume that the 50% failure is down to bad scouting, and not other factors?

I think its in one of his books, and I've not read it, so don't know what he puts it down to, but I'll guess he puts it down to various reasons. But in business, if you are making multi million pound investments and only half of those investments are successful, then unless you get lucky and hit the jackpot, there's a good chance you are not going to be successful, and I can only assume that scouting plays a big part in the transfer decision, whether it be technical or on a more personal/psychological level.

Football is definitely insular, btw, but there are a LOT of people involved, at all levels, who love this stuff and want to see more of it. But there's insularity in a lot of analytics too, where it seems that the perception of football people is that they are closed-minded and suspicious of numbers, when in fact that's only true for a section (usually older) of the football populace. What football people like me want to guard against is any blanket statement or conclusion that allows others to remove skill from the game - which is where my consternation (due to my own misunderstanding) came from. Any statement that can be interpreted as "it doesn't matter if you can finish, it just matters where you are" would be snapped up by unscrupulous coaches looking to improve their win-rates without developing players, in much the same way as the statistics that begot the long ball game did (and I'm not saying that's what Elston said - I know he didn't, now; but it seemed that he was edging in that direction).

I think one of the main reason for the Opta Forum was to get the fanalysts and the clubs together, and some of what you say is covered in their own review of the event here http://www.optasportspro.com/about/optapro-blog/posts/2014/the-optapro-analytics-forum-%E2%80%93-a-review.aspx

From a personal level, I'm not a particularly regular blogger so don't have many Twitter followers, but I'd say a decent percentage of them are football coaches and some involved with pro clubs, so there is definitely an interest, and I'm sure the guys who write a lot more regularly than me have a lot more, and I know at least one or two of them have spoken to clubs (one is an Everton blogger who has spoken to them, discussed in this http://worldsport.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/06/big-data-and-footballs-search-for-the-holy-grail/). But in general, us fanalysts don't have a clue about what you guys are already looking at, are we behind or ahead of the curve for instance, we don't know what you would like to see from us or what would be of use to you, so we kind of plod along with whatever we find interesting. And my feeling is that those who have spoken to clubs have been asked "what can you tell us", which is pretty vague, rather than "we would like you to look at this for us".

One of the comments that stood out to me from that Opta review is the comment that fanalysts have not been proactive in speaking to clubs, but how are we supposed to know who to approach if we wanted to, surely its the football clubs that should approach the best fanalysts?

I'm sure a lot of the bloggers would love to work at a pro club, but they see no way in.

[jdpapa3]

They should require knowledge of the game too, no? If it were up to me, Football Analysts would have to have the same coaching qualifications as coaches themselves

If I were running a club, I'd want a decent stable of them. Some of them with coaching and practical football experience and some of them solely data nerds with limited previous biases. I know the Houston Rockets in the NBA have a militia of data crunchers/visualizers, etc. etc. with varying backgrounds.

Anyone see the Opta contest? I want to come up with something, even if the cash prizes can only go to students.

http://optasports.com/showcase-pages/110.aspx