| Shots on target 09:21 - Jan 14 with 14731 views | SomethingBlue |
It has come to my attention that, now the penny has largely dropped about passing stats, "shots on target" has become the latest metric various posters judge to be more important than the actual result. What utter, abject trash — unless you find a speculative long range pea-roller into the GK's arms from, say, Knudsen more titillating than a bash against the woodwork from Celina, in which case I'm nobody to judge how you get your kicks. So weird to see certain people pursing their lips, shaking their heads and arching their eyebrows over a decent win — astonishing levels of self-loathing. |  |
| |  |
| Shots on target on 09:28 - Jan 14 with 5536 views | JakeITFC |
I find it equally odd to dismiss stats and metrics and to just look at results, though.
Even if you don’t agree with xG or anything like that, you must see the sense in the logic that teams who don’t have many shots on goal (and allow a lot on their goal) are likely to be worse off than those who do the opposite? |  | | |
| Shots on target on 09:29 - Jan 14 with 5531 views | Ftnfwest |
Trying to be sensible about it the shots on target stat whilst still not relevant to the final result is usually the most accurate guide to a sides true dominance as it reflects genuinely created and clear chances. Certainly far more than possession although not as much as number of players on the pitch, which in all fairness is Leeds fault. Anyway don’t worry about it, mick will be here as long as he wants to be. |  | | |
| Shots on target on 09:33 - Jan 14 with 5520 views | SomethingBlue |
| Shots on target on 09:28 - Jan 14 by JakeITFC |
I find it equally odd to dismiss stats and metrics and to just look at results, though.
Even if you don’t agree with xG or anything like that, you must see the sense in the logic that teams who don’t have many shots on goal (and allow a lot on their goal) are likely to be worse off than those who do the opposite? |
I think you miss my point — I should probably have elaborated here that w6nking on about shots on target is probably the best possible argument *for* xG. [Post edited 14 Jan 2018 9:35]
| |
| |
| Shots on target on 09:35 - Jan 14 with 5512 views | SomethingBlue |
| Shots on target on 09:29 - Jan 14 by Ftnfwest |
Trying to be sensible about it the shots on target stat whilst still not relevant to the final result is usually the most accurate guide to a sides true dominance as it reflects genuinely created and clear chances. Certainly far more than possession although not as much as number of players on the pitch, which in all fairness is Leeds fault. Anyway don’t worry about it, mick will be here as long as he wants to be. |
No it's not — what if a guy has a sitter and hits the woodwork? What if a guy is in a brilliant position and drags it wide? What if the shot on target is just a scuffed bit of nonsense from range? As said in other reply, it actually makes more sense to use the (still flawed) xG model. | |
| |
| Shots on target on 09:40 - Jan 14 with 5467 views | Ftnfwest |
| Shots on target on 09:35 - Jan 14 by SomethingBlue |
No it's not — what if a guy has a sitter and hits the woodwork? What if a guy is in a brilliant position and drags it wide? What if the shot on target is just a scuffed bit of nonsense from range? As said in other reply, it actually makes more sense to use the (still flawed) xG model. |
Stats are based over 90 minutes not odd events when sitters for instance are missed or the bar is hit. Bit like seasons are judged on 46 games not one. I’m not looking for an argument SB I’m just saying this particular stat is generally the best guide as to a sides dominance rather than possession but let’s face it a side can dominate and still lose. | | | |
| Shots on target on 09:41 - Jan 14 with 5465 views | Herbivore |
| Shots on target on 09:29 - Jan 14 by Ftnfwest |
Trying to be sensible about it the shots on target stat whilst still not relevant to the final result is usually the most accurate guide to a sides true dominance as it reflects genuinely created and clear chances. Certainly far more than possession although not as much as number of players on the pitch, which in all fairness is Leeds fault. Anyway don’t worry about it, mick will be here as long as he wants to be. |
Leeds' best chance wasn't a shot on target, the closest we came to a second goal also wasn't a shot on target. Shots on goal can be an indicator of chances created, but it's rather irrelevant whether or not the keeper made an easy save or it whistled a fraction past the post. Also, shots on goal doesn't take account of all those times you get a cross into the box that an opponent just managers to nick away to prevent an easy chance. Those are still opportunities and if you're doing that ten times a game chances are eventually you'll score and if the opposition are harmlessly pot shotting from 25 yards the stats will look as though the side who hasn't genuinely threatened is the one that was on top. Stats tend to be relied on mainly by the ultra negative lot on here who don't go to games and think that the BBC match stats give them the same insight as someone who was actually watching the game. |  |
| |
| Shots on target on 09:42 - Jan 14 with 5459 views | JakeITFC |
| Shots on target on 09:33 - Jan 14 by SomethingBlue |
I think you miss my point — I should probably have elaborated here that w6nking on about shots on target is probably the best possible argument *for* xG. [Post edited 14 Jan 2018 9:35]
|
Yeah, that’s where xG came from.
I agree with your point about (I’m guessing, as I haven’t been on here much after the game yesterday) that people who use this as a stick to beat the team with after a specific game, because as with all stats they are situation dependant and variance plays a huge part over such a small sample size.
The general point still stands though - we aren’t creating much, we concede a lot of good chances and it shows more in our results as Garner/Waghorn haven’t carried on their superhuman starts to the season. | | | |
| Shots on target on 09:44 - Jan 14 with 5449 views | JakeITFC |
| Shots on target on 09:41 - Jan 14 by Herbivore |
Leeds' best chance wasn't a shot on target, the closest we came to a second goal also wasn't a shot on target. Shots on goal can be an indicator of chances created, but it's rather irrelevant whether or not the keeper made an easy save or it whistled a fraction past the post. Also, shots on goal doesn't take account of all those times you get a cross into the box that an opponent just managers to nick away to prevent an easy chance. Those are still opportunities and if you're doing that ten times a game chances are eventually you'll score and if the opposition are harmlessly pot shotting from 25 yards the stats will look as though the side who hasn't genuinely threatened is the one that was on top. Stats tend to be relied on mainly by the ultra negative lot on here who don't go to games and think that the BBC match stats give them the same insight as someone who was actually watching the game. |
We’ll play a game for the rest of the Championship season if you like - I get the team who has the most shots on goal in a game, and you have the other one, and a draw is a push.
Something for charity? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Shots on target on 10:10 - Jan 14 with 5382 views | BrixtonBlue |
Not to mention the inaccuracy of said stats. At half time yesterday the stats showed no shots at all from Town, no corners for either side, and get this NO YELLOW OR RED CARDS!!
The best way to judge a team's dominance is to watch the game. The second best way is to read a decent match report. |  |
| |
| Shots on target on 10:13 - Jan 14 with 5350 views | Herbivore |
| Shots on target on 09:44 - Jan 14 by JakeITFC |
We’ll play a game for the rest of the Championship season if you like - I get the team who has the most shots on goal in a game, and you have the other one, and a draw is a push.
Something for charity? |
I'm not a gambling man. | |
| |
| Shots on target on 10:16 - Jan 14 with 5328 views | pointofblue |
| Shots on target on 09:35 - Jan 14 by SomethingBlue |
No it's not — what if a guy has a sitter and hits the woodwork? What if a guy is in a brilliant position and drags it wide? What if the shot on target is just a scuffed bit of nonsense from range? As said in other reply, it actually makes more sense to use the (still flawed) xG model. |
Though saying that, if we had hit the bar three times, the post four, had two shots drift narrowly wide and another a whisker over the bar against Sheffield United I doubt as many people would be moaning about the game - more would be pointing out how unlucky we were.
Some would still harp on about it of course, but... | |
| |
| Shots on target on 10:16 - Jan 14 with 5323 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Shots on target on 09:28 - Jan 14 by JakeITFC |
I find it equally odd to dismiss stats and metrics and to just look at results, though.
Even if you don’t agree with xG or anything like that, you must see the sense in the logic that teams who don’t have many shots on goal (and allow a lot on their goal) are likely to be worse off than those who do the opposite? |
Well that would depend on how much possession they have had !!! |  |
| |
| Shots on target on 10:16 - Jan 14 with 5323 views | BackToRussia |
Have to say I've managed to miss these posts.
I've seen it happen a lot when we fail to score which is understandable, but didn't see anyone last night for instance. |  |
| |
| Shots on target on 10:17 - Jan 14 with 5317 views | Ace_High1 |
| Shots on target on 10:13 - Jan 14 by Herbivore |
I'm not a gambling man. |
Arf!!! |  | | |
| Shots on target on 10:18 - Jan 14 with 5310 views | Mullet |
Pfft you're about 2 weeks behind me old bean!
I agree entirely though, it's very odd. Although a lot of people are so heavily invested in doing us down that it's inevitable. Watson made a very funny tweet about us being a man up and suggesting we should do what Fulham did.
Wonder who that was aimed at? |  |
| |
| Shots on target on 10:20 - Jan 14 with 5292 views | JakeITFC |
| Shots on target on 10:16 - Jan 14 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Well that would depend on how much possession they have had !!! |
Surprisingly enough there’s a fair correlation between having a lot of the ball and having a lot of shots. | | | |
| Shots on target on 10:24 - Jan 14 with 5268 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Shots on target on 10:20 - Jan 14 by JakeITFC |
Surprisingly enough there’s a fair correlation between having a lot of the ball and having a lot of shots. |
Really? You got some evidence for that? | |
| |
| Shots on target on 10:52 - Jan 14 with 5162 views | imsureazzure |
Rubbish, if you are following a game based purely on figures and stats and had to have a bet, would you?
A. Bet on the team who has had 65% possession and 8 shots on target.
B. the team who has had 35% possession and 1 shot on target. |  | | |
| Shots on target on 11:00 - Jan 14 with 5116 views | Guthrum |
Shots on target by Guthrum 8 Jan 2018 11:56Very trendy, but really is quite a meaningless stat, when taken entirely on its own.
A soft lob directly at the goalie is, an unstoppable fizzer hitting the bar isn't. But which is actually the better shot? Neither actually results in a goal.
If you want to prove "attacking intent", then you may as well include all shots (on, off, blocked, hit the woodwork), plus corners, long throws into the box and crosses which nobody got on the end of. All of those are indicative of being up the opposition end of the field and seriously trying to score.
Alternatively, if you're looking at striking ability, then only count the goals themselves, not the ones which weren't good enough to get past the 'keeper.
|  |
| |
| Shots on target on 11:07 - Jan 14 with 5092 views | Johnny_Boy |
But we had more shots on target yesterday than Leeds....and we won. Should Leeds have got the draw or all points because they achieved less shots on target than us? You tell me.
By all means, feel free to bring this point up when we beat a team by having less shots on target than them. [Post edited 14 Jan 2018 11:10]
|  | | |
| Shots on target on 11:12 - Jan 14 with 5069 views | Ftnfwest |
| Shots on target on 09:41 - Jan 14 by Herbivore |
Leeds' best chance wasn't a shot on target, the closest we came to a second goal also wasn't a shot on target. Shots on goal can be an indicator of chances created, but it's rather irrelevant whether or not the keeper made an easy save or it whistled a fraction past the post. Also, shots on goal doesn't take account of all those times you get a cross into the box that an opponent just managers to nick away to prevent an easy chance. Those are still opportunities and if you're doing that ten times a game chances are eventually you'll score and if the opposition are harmlessly pot shotting from 25 yards the stats will look as though the side who hasn't genuinely threatened is the one that was on top. Stats tend to be relied on mainly by the ultra negative lot on here who don't go to games and think that the BBC match stats give them the same insight as someone who was actually watching the game. |
If all those scenarios happen in one game then yes it’s skewed but generally they don’t. I’m not saying the stat of shots on goal is always correct, it’s simply the best indicator of which side is creating the most chances. | | | |
| Shots on target on 11:15 - Jan 14 with 5048 views | Johnny_Boy |
| Shots on target on 09:35 - Jan 14 by SomethingBlue |
No it's not — what if a guy has a sitter and hits the woodwork? What if a guy is in a brilliant position and drags it wide? What if the shot on target is just a scuffed bit of nonsense from range? As said in other reply, it actually makes more sense to use the (still flawed) xG model. |
Then they don't score a goal.
I thought you said the only thing that matters is the result (e.g. goals scored at the end of the game & 1pt or 3pts gained) | | | |
| Shots on target on 11:16 - Jan 14 with 5047 views | Herbivore |
| Shots on target on 11:12 - Jan 14 by Ftnfwest |
If all those scenarios happen in one game then yes it’s skewed but generally they don’t. I’m not saying the stat of shots on goal is always correct, it’s simply the best indicator of which side is creating the most chances. |
Although you're probably still better off just watching the game and making your own mind up. | |
| |
| Shots on target on 11:21 - Jan 14 with 5003 views | Ftnfwest |
| Shots on target on 11:16 - Jan 14 by Herbivore |
Although you're probably still better off just watching the game and making your own mind up. |
I am of course talking more genarllly rather than just about yesterday, and no I don’t give a monkeys how we beat Leeds, just as long as we did it! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
