Just a stat (Sorry Cods)

[Shogun]

Not that this comes as a surprise

[Cods]

Not that this comes as a surprise

Was going to say that 'not all analysis is bad, most is fine',...

But then I can't get past why in the first one that Brentford is supposedly the standout, and not Wolves?

Surely there is expected to be a positive correlation between shot conversion rate and xG per shot. I mean, that's effectively what xG means and was designed to predict; the more difficult the shot, the less likely to score, and vice versa?

Wolves appear to be very much over-performing compared to the rest of the league, converting a far greater proportion than a team would be expected to (couple of Cunha worldies, I expect).

[TheRam]

Was going to say that 'not all analysis is bad, most is fine',...

But then I can't get past why in the first one that Brentford is supposedly the standout, and not Wolves?

Surely there is expected to be a positive correlation between shot conversion rate and xG per shot. I mean, that's effectively what xG means and was designed to predict; the more difficult the shot, the less likely to score, and vice versa?

Wolves appear to be very much over-performing compared to the rest of the league, converting a far greater proportion than a team would be expected to (couple of Cunha worldies, I expect).

You’re trying way too hard to find fault with the stats.

[Cods]

You’re trying way too hard to find fault with the stats.

I'm not sure how more simply this graph could be interpreted. It was literally the first thing that jumped out. I'm not having a crack at Shogs either, to be clear, strictly the comment from the opta stats media people or whoever posted it.

I'm assuming "Brentford " is the analysis, and what the creator wanted to highlight.

For a graph to mean anything, it has to be designed for a reason, to show something, and the Brentford and Palace/Everton ends arent it, they're part of a pretty logical correlation based on the variables they've used. I'm sure there are others out there that would agree?

[brap2]

Was going to say that 'not all analysis is bad, most is fine',...

But then I can't get past why in the first one that Brentford is supposedly the standout, and not Wolves?

Surely there is expected to be a positive correlation between shot conversion rate and xG per shot. I mean, that's effectively what xG means and was designed to predict; the more difficult the shot, the less likely to score, and vice versa?

Wolves appear to be very much over-performing compared to the rest of the league, converting a far greater proportion than a team would be expected to (couple of Cunha worldies, I expect).

Not read it obviously but.. presumably because what can you say beyond 'wolves scored worldies', whereas a team of brentfords side making regular quality chances and converting them is the sign of a team playing well to a designed scheme so is an actual thing to talk about beyond goal man goes boom.

[Trowel]

More stats

[Kerryblueboy]

That’s madness completely opposite of what worked last season