Match Thread: Scunthorpe United v Port Vale

[toyahw]

48 minutes ago, Playa Amodores said:

I didn’t see the game but with the majority saying the better team won then that will do for me. I do like it when ppl are honest and take off their black&white spectacles. 

Very true. We are not world beaters, sometimes you just have to accept that. We're doing alright under the circs. I didn't think we lost yesterday, just got beat. 

[Joe B]

2 hours ago, Jacob_123 said:

To me it looked like they just grabbed each other. Personally didn’t see any punches or anything like that.

I'm fairly confident at least one of them swung for eachother (if not both), which propagated the rush of all the players to break it up

[DistantVale]

5 hours ago, Joe B said:

Here's one for the stats nerds out there.

A great lower league stat analysis guy called Ben Mayhew (@experimental361 on Twitter) does a regular update on an xG table for the 4 divisions.

Simply put to those who don't rate or like analytics, every shot taken in a game is measured in terms of probability of success for a number of factors (distance from goal, position, header/shot, position of defenders) to work out which team had the better chances in any given game. Each shot is given a value of between 0 and 1, a tap in being closer to one (as its scored more time than not out of 100), and a 40 yard piledriver a value closer to zero.

Once you add these values up, you get an idea as to which team had better chances. Even if a team is on a losing run, teams which have good xG numbers usually revert to the mean and start winning games. Stoke under Nathan Jones were an interesting anomaly; posting consistent top 6 xG numbers whilst losing every week.

This is the table for League 2 so far this season. It puts us in 7th, as we should have won 8 games, drawn 5, and lost 6 based on the quality of chances we created and conceded in both games (if we converted and conceded at the average rate). I could go into the fact that scoring goals is more about creating good chances than having good finishers but that's another debate.

There must be an element of accuracy to the models as if you add up the value of every shot we've taken, it yields 25.2 (we've scored 25), and if you add up the value of every shot we've conceded, it yields 25.3 (we've conceded 25). It's pretty much spot on.

Now, these models are full of flaws, and should not be taken as gospel, but it gives a nice bit of reassurance that we're about where we deserve to be. Salford have been very lucky and Cambridge very unlucky (or Salford are extremely clinical and Cambridge extremely wasteful).

Either way, we're not getting lucky. We largely deserve to be on the edge of the playoffs.

 

So Forest Green are second in the league but in your table they are 17th , how can that be ?

[Joe B]

5 minutes ago, DistantVale said:

So Forest Green are second in the league but in your table they are 17th , how can that be ?

Several explanations;

One, they have a squad chock full of quality finishers/players good from long range. Finishing in football is largely at a similar level until you reach the top flight; its more about how good the chance is than how good the finisher is.

Two, they've got a great goalkeeper who is saving good quality chances which his team are conceding.

Three, they're very lucky and will most likely plummet down the table as the season wears on (they were rubbish against us).

There are anomalies to this analysis; Jones' Stoke, Dyche's Burnley, and possibly this FGR who just happen to defy expectations.

[DistantVale]

2 minutes ago, Joe B said:

Several explanations;

One, they have a squad chock full of quality finishers/players good from long range. Finishing in football is largely at a similar level until you reach the top flight; its more about how good the chance is than how good the finisher is.

Two, they've got a great goalkeeper who is saving good quality chances which his team are conceding.

Three, they're very lucky and will most likely plummet down the table as the season wears on (they were rubbish against us).

There are anomalies to this analysis; Jones' Stoke, Dyche's Burnley, and possibly this FGR who just happen to defy expectations.

I'm none the wiser ...i'll leave it at that

[Bycarsbill]

On 23/11/2019 at 17:13, Biddulph_PV said:

Keep reading this but we’d only lost 1 in in 11 or so, so what does that prove?? I agree with another poster that you can almost tell which away grounds we’re going to get done at. Swindon is one, Grimsby, Scunny. It is frustrating.

I'm not disagreeing.  We haven't won there for about 6 years--just saying that Scunthorpe's record over the last few games has not been that bad.

[Rampant Zebra]

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/worrall-joyce-port-vale-suspensions-3574498

 

Suspension latest from the Sentinel, we are appealing Worralls yellow

[Wrex]

4 hours ago, Rampant Zebra said:

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/worrall-joyce-port-vale-suspensions-3574498

 

Suspension latest from the Sentinel, we are appealing Worralls yellow

red?

[Rampant Zebra]

28 minutes ago, Wrex said:

red?

Yes, typo!

[darren1810]

On 24/11/2019 at 19:19, DistantVale said:

So Forest Green are second in the league but in your table they are 17th , how can that be ?

Because it is absolute twaddle and means diddly squat. 

You can reel as many stats out as you want, the REAL League table is what counts not some analyst getting paid silly money to play on a computer.

I was there on Saturday and we couldn't of argued at a 3-1 or worse defeat. There are not many games ( maybe FGR ) where we should of stuffed a team, in the main most of our wins have been tight affairs by the odd goal .

Maybe it's my age but this XG stuff is twaddle.

[Joe B]

9 hours ago, darren1810 said:

Because it is absolute twaddle and means diddly squat. 

You can reel as many stats out as you want, the REAL League table is what counts not some analyst getting paid silly money to play on a computer.

I was there on Saturday and we couldn't of argued at a 3-1 or worse defeat. There are not many games ( maybe FGR ) where we should of stuffed a team, in the main most of our wins have been tight affairs by the odd goal .

Maybe it's my age but this XG stuff is twaddle.

Hi there.

I don't really know what you're arguing against here? What exactly do you disagree with? xG says we've been the 7th best team in terms of creating chances and limiting chances, and we're 9th. xG says our shots, if finished at the average rate, would equate to 25 goals scored and 25 goals conceded; which we have, to the very number. Is it the concept of stats in general which upsets you?

There's no game on a computer, no usurption of the REAL league table; just people measuring how good a chance is on a variety of pertinent factors, in order to assess whether teams are winning games because they're good at creating and limiting chances, or if they're getting lucky.

The real league table has most sides mostly around their xG position, suggesting there is a degree of accuracy. Obviously there are outliers, but that provides an intriguing insight into what they are doing differently to everyone else. Why are Forest Green and Cambridge such egregious anomalies; do they have better finishers? Is it a run of good luck, which by basic mathematics/averages, will inevitable end? Is there keeper performing wonders?

I was there on Saturday too. We were lucky to keep it at 2. I'm really not sure what's wound you up here, bar some primal, luddite rage against the idea that stats can give us an idea about football.

Every single Premier League club, run by people 10x more qualified and intelligent than you and me, rely heavily on stats, and most professional clubs will engage in analytics and especially xG as to some form. Don't start blarting because you don't understand it/"was better in my day when Chopper Harris could murder a player in cold blood live on the pitch and we'd doff our caps".

I would probably argue it is your age, yes.

I'd be happy to link a variety of peer-researched methodologies which expand on the models, methods, and outcomes of stats in football, but I wouldn't want to ruin your evening.

 

 

[Joe B]

up the vale etc

[valefan16]

Another FA charge for us for the trouble at full time.

[DistantVale]

2 hours ago, Joe B said:

Hi there.

I don't really know what you're arguing against here? What exactly do you disagree with? xG says we've been the 7th best team in terms of creating chances and limiting chances, and we're 9th. xG says our shots, if finished at the average rate, would equate to 25 goals scored and 25 goals conceded; which we have, to the very number. Is it the concept of stats in general which upsets you?

There's no game on a computer, no usurption of the REAL league table; just people measuring how good a chance is on a variety of pertinent factors, in order to assess whether teams are winning games because they're good at creating and limiting chances, or if they're getting lucky.

The real league table has most sides mostly around their xG position, suggesting there is a degree of accuracy. Obviously there are outliers, but that provides an intriguing insight into what they are doing differently to everyone else. Why are Forest Green and Cambridge such egregious anomalies; do they have better finishers? Is it a run of good luck, which by basic mathematics/averages, will inevitable end? Is there keeper performing wonders?

I was there on Saturday too. We were lucky to keep it at 2. I'm really not sure what's wound you up here, bar some primal, luddite rage against the idea that stats can give us an idea about football.

Every single Premier League club, run by people 10x more qualified and intelligent than you and me, rely heavily on stats, and most professional clubs will engage in analytics and especially xG as to some form. Don't start blarting because you don't understand it/"was better in my day when Chopper Harris could murder a player in cold blood live on the pitch and we'd doff our caps".

I would probably argue it is your age, yes.

I'd be happy to link a variety of peer-researched methodologies which expand on the models, methods, and outcomes of stats in football, but I wouldn't want to ruin your evening.

 

 

Get a life mate.... the league table is here to stay !

[darren1810]

Joe maybe I'm too old skool . The fact we are supposedly the 7th best means nothing at all. 

FGR proves that. Jake Taylor open goal ( hate to pick on him ) was probably a guaranteed goal on xg but he missed. 

I'm sorry mate we'll have to agree to disagree. For example how can xg legislate for Brown dropping the ball ? 

It's not for me, if you have the time and inclination that's your prerogative, we just differ in opinion. And by the way do not patronise me with your sarcastic tone pal