Season Statistical Review - one number for Fulham: 20.49

[DadCreature]

From an ESPN article yesterday (reviewing one key statistic for each team).  FFC's number was "20.49" - the combined amount of actual goals scored above xG and the actual goals conceded below expected.  At least according to the "expected" numbers, FFC is more like 15-16 in the table, not 10.  We can quibble with that, as the "expected" numbers may not accurately reflect talent on the squad (I especially think the defensive numbers under-estimate Ream's performance given his age).  But the team should also consider that we may be ripe for a bit of regression to the mean next season, meaning that we should be ruthless in looking for upgrades.

The article:

"Marco Silva's team just went on a season-long heater at both ends of the pitch. They scored nearly eight more goals than their xG total, and they conceded 12.5 fewer than expected. All in all, their actual goal differential (plus-2) beat their xG differential (minus-18.49) by more than 20 goals. No one else in the league was even close to that level.

What does it all mean? Fulham should take the found money and reinvest in the squad. Bernd Leno, a fine shot-stopper for most of his career, had the best season of his life in goal, while all of their secondary players seemed to convert one xG into three goals, or something like that.

There's nothing about this collection of talent or their style of play that suggests they're gonna be able to keep this shot-conversion and suppression up. Sometimes everyone just gets hot at the same time, and it turns a just-above-relegation-level performance into a positive goal differential.

Although the table might make it look that way, this team hasn't solidified its Premier League status just yet. Concede and generate the exact same profile of shots next season, and they might have a relegation battle on their hands."

[ffcthereligion]

An interesting perspective

[FulhamKC]

Can someone explain how xG is calculated?

[Rupert]

It is on a par with the Duckworth Lewis method of deciding cricket scores, isn't it? Not for us mere mortals

[McBrideOfFrankenstein]

Saw this reported through the first half of the season and had it in mind as I watched us. I believe XG misses a lot of the qualities characteristic of a well coached team, for example Wilson or Reed running into space to drag a defender away from Mitro, Robinson's tireless running shifting the play forward in moments, Tete's marking an attacker out of a play without making a statistical "tackle," and many others.

Also, a lot of our best goals were "team goals" involving a significant buildup, which I believe also cuts against the XG stat: we scored despite not necessarily having a lot of players other than Mitro with above average individual goal-creating skill, if that makes sense.

In short, we were 10th and absolutely deserved it. People who say it's a fluke are idiots who probably didn't watch too many Fulham matches.

That said, I do think another regular player "with goals in him" outside of Mitro would help tremendously. A player who can create that yard of space and get a shot in.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Fortunately football is not decided by statistics which is the language of buffoons.

[bencher]

Does xG factor in the ability of the player? My understanding is xG applies criteria based on some constant and average level of ability, to ascribe a difficulty level of a particular chance. In other words, assuming every player had the shooting ability of, say, Tom Cairney, how likely are they to score in a particular situation, factoring in distance, angle, position of goalkeeper and other players.

The problem is, if the player shooting is Harry Kane, they are far more likely to score, and if it is Dickson Etuhu, far less likely.

So if Fulham end the season with a massive performance above our xG, doesn't that just mean that we have a load of brilliant players? One game could be a fluke, but over 38 games, that has to mean that they are just really good players. Have I missed something?

[The Rational Fan]

Let's face reality, when it comes to creating chances at the attacking end and preventing chances at the defending end, Fulham 22/23 is no better than Leeds and a little worse than Leicester, plus defensively we are marginally worse than Fulham 18/19. Preventing chances turn into goal is where we excelled, we need to improve elsewhere in defense.

[RaySmith]

I think we should have finished higher - poor ref decisions, and the Mitro incident, lost us several points.

This article is attempting to rewrite history.

The reality is - we finished  10th, after a great season of excellent performances throughout the team, with some great results against top opposition, and very well organised and led by Mitro along with Boa.

Next season is a completely different matter - probably won't have exactly the same team, and everyone at the club will have learned from this season just gone.

[Al-Fayed]

Expected goals can often be an indication of a team that is overperforming, but sometimes reveal a team with lethal finishers. This season Kane had an xG of 20 goals and scored an impressive 30. There didn't seem anything flukey about Willian and Solomon's goals where they cut in and let fly. They seemed to have the skill to pick out the corners.

[Carborundum]

In simple terms, Leno was very good indeed and our finishing was too.

But you can't stand still in this league. We've avoided the drop, FFP headroom exists and so we have to improve both starters and depth.  If we do, we will be fine.  If we don't, we absolutely won't be.  But let's spend the summer assuming we will.

[General]

I think the whole Gx etc is simply overanalysing performance. Stats like this do little good to anyone and simply try to disregard what actually happened.

The fact fulham have such odd numbers just shows that the approach, to me at least, simply doesn't work, as you can have such a significant anomaly and do well, which means it fails to take into account more important information that makes a more significant contribution to a teams overall position and general performances.

Time to give up on the GX difference.


In addition to this, I also find it ridiculously stupid to have live in game winning percentages. Firstly it's absurd to suggest that a game is 80% won based on a 2-0 scoreline in the 80th minute when football is known to and can change drastically in a matter of seconds, see the man utd vs bayern Munich CL final. Its trying to academically define people and competitive sport in a way which simply doesn't work and shouldn't be considered. That's the magic of sport and also football and the human spirit, effort increased and emotional dynamics can change a game on a dime.

[Tabby]

I decided to look at our fixtures and found the following. We won 3 games and drew three where we had a lower XG wheras we lost 5 and drew 4 with the higher XG.

Looking at that (and the eye test) I think we pass. Not like we had many results I would call a steal.

[Fulham Tup North]

I think to correctly analyse GX you have to measure shots expect on target v shot against off target, divide this by the number of saves your keeper makes during the first half of all away matches, then add the corners won by midfield players only... and then take away the number you first thought of...  it really is that simple...  not sure what everyone's problem is tbf???
😉⚽️..COYW

[The Rational Fan]

I decided to look at our fixtures and found the following. We won 3 games and drew three where we had a lower XG wheras we lost 5 and drew 4 with the higher XG.

Looking at that (and the eye test) I think we pass. Not like we had many results I would call a steal.

According to Infogol, we won five games we should have lost/drawn that is 17 points reduction.
Fulham 2-1 Brighton (should have been 1-2)
Forest 2-3 Fulham (should have been 2-1)
Fulham 2-1 Chelsea (should have been 1-3)
Brighton 0-1 Fulham (should have been 3-0)
Everton 1-3 Fulham (should have been 2-2)
Fulham 5-3 Leicester (should have been 2-3)

As for games we created better chances when we actually lost, there is only one game (gaining one points).
Fulham 0-1 Tottenham (should have been 1-1)

That means with an average keeper and average finishing we should have got 36 points (52 -17 +1). I think 36 points might keep us up, but as we would have given three points to Forest, Everton and Leicester (the table would have ended up 13. Forest 41pts, 14. West Ham 40pts, 15. Everton 39pts, 16. Bournemouth 39pts, 17 Leicester 37 pts, 18. Fulham 36pts and the rest the same.

Fulham ended up 10th and not 18th because we took our chances and made great saves, but we need to reinforce in the summer to be more that a team that delivers in both penalty areas.